I’ve been writing a (much) longer post dealing with the story I’m about to link, but I realized that I’m just not going to get it finished tonight and–after a few days of being unable to blog–I didn’t want to go with nothing again today.
So let the discussion begin.
Keep it polite.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I think both her letter of endorsement, and her thoughts on her previous work, reveal a woman with a very rich interior life.
What she is saying, I would have said two years ago. I still feel what she says, especially seeing how some people are conservative first, Catholic second, at least in lip service.
However, there are some deal breakers. I’m gonna throw the Hitler card out right away, because unlike some people think with silly Internet debate rules, the Nazis are one of the best examples of the 20th century of how not to be. So, that said, if someone was for helping the poor, balancing the budget, making the economy strong, and had a great plan, yet supported other positions the Nazis did such as euthanasia, genocide, and fascism, it’s kind of a deal breaker. You can’t say, “hey, candidate x is great, except for that whole racial hatred thing, but we can get past that” and not be a bit hypocritical.
I also disagree that voting for a third party should the two main ones be unacceptable being wrong. One should vote for a candidate that does not violate these non-negotiable principles. If that means someone lousy wins anyway, at least it wasn’t with the help of your vote and you did everything you could legally do.
I really do feel where she’s coming from, and once thought a bad war with a person I thought had bad judgment was running it was apt reason to vote against my conscience on another matter. It’s not, some things just are not negotiable in the equation. And as horrible as war is, abortion kills a heck of a lot more.
I think that her position represents a great lack of faith. Just look at the premise. She says that Roe can’t be overturned. Who says it can’t? God can do what He wants, and if people rise up in faith we certainly can do it with God’s help. Anytime someone says can’t, and tells you they have faith, you have to stop and question what they mean by faith. I think she is more of the giving up and giving in mentality, but I wouldn’t say she has great faith at all.
If her point is that we need to hold our leaders that tell us they are pro-life more accountable, I would second that. But to endorse those who openly oppose her stated position is simply a lie. I think Anne Rice may have some mental problems, or she is simply a plant of the pro-abortion side. But her logic is lacking and her faith seems to have gone missing.
She reminds me of the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. She looks like grandma, but her teeth give her away.
I have to echo Jarnor23’s position on this as well. Regardless of qualities that may exist, too much is not negotiable with Hilary. Also, unlike when most use the terms Nazi, Fascist, Commie etc. in a conversation about someone they disagree with, Jarnor23 made a great point about focusing too much on one aspect of a candidates platform.
As Anne Rice stated, the separation of church and state is great and allows religious freedom for all peoples, however, we do not need to erect a wholly new Jeffersonian wall of separation between the two. The concept was never intended to be used in the way it is today. It was intended to keep the nation as a whole from founding a national church and religion, not much more. Mentioning religion and living your own as a candidate does not violate Church/state relations, we need to stop behaving as if it does, it will be detrimental to us all in the end as we cooperate with those who wish to eliminate the voice of the faithful from all political arenas.
While I think that Anne Rice is profoundly wrong in her reasoning, I appreciate what seems to be her good-faith effort to think through the issues seriously and to act with integrity, including her willingness to potentially alienate a large part of her desired Christian base by voicing what will surely be an unpopular POV. It seems to me that she is sincerely trying to be a faithful, thoughtful Catholic and citizen. She is making some serious mistakes, possibly inevitably, but she is trying.
Of course she is right that rolling back Roe isn’t going to “stop abortion” all by itself. What I don’t know if she appreciates is that it is an absolutely necessary step in the struggle for life. Yes, as she says, if Roe is overturned, there will be some laws passed enshrining a right to abortion, particularly at the state level. There will also be laws passed at the state level restricting abortion — laws that currently cannot be passed in spite of popular support and legislative willingness, because they keep getting zapped at the judicial level by Roe.
When the people want good laws, and legislators are willing to pass them, but judges won’t let them, something has gone awry, and something needs to be fixed. A move from abortion law by judicial fiat to abortion law by democratic process is a move toward justice.
It is not the case that Roe continues to be the de facto law of the land because Americans don’t want to give up abortion rights. Pro-choice sentiment, while firmly entrenched, is not as powerful as that. The reason Roe continues to be the de facto law of the land is that our judicial oligarchy has not thus far seen fit to overturn it.
That needs to end, and for that reason — among many others — we need judges who are willing to interpret the Constitution in the light of the hard words on the page rather than the ethereal “prenumbras” and “emanations” that activist judges have for some time divined in the air around it.
FWIW, it should be pointed out that “Godwin’s Law” (and the forfeiture rider) acknowledges the possibility of a valid and meaningful comparison to Hitler/Nazis in a handful of very rare circumstances. It is because overapplication of this analogy in comparatively trivial matters weakens its force in those few circumstances where it actually is a valid point of comparison that those who use it where it is not truly warranted are deemed to have lost the debate.
Abortion is one of the few cases where the analogy actually is warranted.
I don’t think this is a fair reading. She doesn’t say Roe can’t be overturned. She says she doesn’t think this is the solution, since overturning Roe won’t convince Americans to give up abortion rights. She doesn’t say that the abortion problem can’t be solved — only that she doesn’t know how to solve it. But she also says that she believes it can and must be solved. In light of that, I think the accusation of lack of faith is very much unwarranted.
Here here Jrose, Doesn’t anyone know what ‘separation of church and state’ means? I hate when that line gets thrown around. I guess many ‘learned’ people would be shocked to hear that the Declaration of Independence even mentions God and the Creator and makes an appeal to the ‘Supreme Judge of the world’.
I think that SDG has looked at what it literally being stated and not grasped what Rice means. I think you missed the Little Red Riding Hood thing. “She looks like grandma” Or you could say she looks like she cares.
While she doesn’t actually say “can’t” she is using the basic hand out condems argument. We can’t stop the kids from having sex, so give them condems. We can’t stop people from having abortions so give them Hillary. It’s the same thing.
I don’t think that the reading is unfair at all. I think that you know someone by their fruits. Rice supports an openly pro-abortion candidate. ‘nuf said
On the one hand, who doesn’t know that democrats are craven? Ann Rice knows. Doesn’t care. One the other hand, who will say, “I vote for republicans because they have limited the number of abortions in the USA to just forty eight million?
These politicians are not doing what is right. Americans need to show discernment, and it’s not difficult, but are instead caught up in a dance of death.
I remember some commenting on the The English Patient and saying it struck them as a three-hour justification for selling maps to Nazis. Granted, this isn’t as long, but it seems like a lot of consequentialist verbiage to justify voting for pro-abortionists whom she, as far as I can tell, have routinely voted for anyway. I guess the good news is that the pro-lifers are generating enough cognitive dissonance about voting for abortionists that there is now a need to offer such rationalizations however convoluted. Concupiscence darkens the intellect once more.
And every time I hear people talking about Roe v. Wade and effectively ending abortion, it sounds like Saruman telling us that against the power of Mordor there can be no victory. Therefore we must join them.
Isn’t Catholic Democrat an oxymoron?
Essentially, she is putting into different words the old argument that we can’t legislate social change. Of course we can do so. For one huge example, look at the slavery issue.
From a strictly scientific point of view, there is no doubt that the development of an individual human life begins at conception. A four-week embryo has a heartbeat a seven-week embryo has arms and fingers. Look at the pictures (If you don’t want to see the graphic pictures, don’t look at them) http://prolifetraining.com/Abortion-Pictures.htm and here is a video that shows the inhumanity of elective abortion http://prolifetraining.com/Abortion-Video.htm We must be very straight forward about the question “what is the unborn?” and very straight forward in regards to using graphic visuals in a wise way (i.e. giving people the option not to look). Graphic visuals are a standard and highly effective means to good education with other moral issues such as the Civil Rights movement, the Holocaust, and other issues). Every person in the U.S. (and other places) should know that “what is the unborn?” is the key question in the abortion debate. If your child comes up behind you while you’re in your kitchen and asks, “Mommy?Daddy, can I kill this?” what one question must you ask before you can answer his question? You must first ask “What is it? If it’s a cockroach, he can smash it. If it’s the funny looking boy that lives down the street, you are going to have to have a major talk with him. I have taught most of the people I work with the mentioned key question. The unborn has a unique genetic fingerprint. The unborn is a distinct, individual, living human being See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29. Elective abortion clearly, clearly shouldn’t be allowed (just as slavery of black people shouldn’t be allowed). People must vigorously use education, etc., to contribute to making elective abortion so that it isn’t allowed. There can’t be any “Well…we shouldn’t really try to say or do anything that might make it so that elective abortion wouldn’t be allowed” type statements.
Rice supports an openly pro-abortion candidate.
“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
I think we should be patient with Ms. Rice. She is a new Christian and we can’t expect such a dramatic turn in a person’s mind and heart that she should become both Christian and Conservative overnight. By sincerely seeking truth she found Christ, and as long as she continues to sincerely seek truth she will eventually find the fullness of His will. A religious conversion is a big thing, yet it may take several years for it to spread into the political realm of a persons being. She’s still a “young” Christian, remember?
(continued)
(New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29. Elective abortion clearly, clearly shouldn’t be allowed (just as slavery of black people shouldn’t be allowed). People must vigorously use education, etc., to contribute to making elective abortion so that it isn’t allowed. There can’t be any “Well…we shouldn’t really try to say or do anything that might make it so that elective abortion wouldn’t be allowed” type statements.
As I understand her, Ann Rice argues, in a soft voice, that Democrat policies are more likely to result in fewer abortions because ‘demand’ would be lower.
I don’t think it is an either/or between legislation and other means.
The number of abortions per 1,000 pregnancies varies greatly, even between states/countries which have equally permissive laws. Within the same state/country it varies between women of different financial and other backgrounds. Changing abortion law on its own will at most have a limited effect on saving lives for the reasons given by Rice. Even if abortion were illegal, we would still need de facto protection of those threatened by illegal abortion (whether committed by doctors or others). Restrictive/protective legislation alone is way too little.
The debate has become too polarized. Although there is an irreconcilable conflict of values, not enough effort has been made to find common ground in reducing the ‘need’ for abortion. Most pro-choicers say they would prefer if abortion was not ‘necessary’. Some women become pregnant accidentally, others intended to become pregnant but their circumstances have changed (eg financial, relationship, health, diagnosis of twins or disability). I find it especially tragic when married couples have an abortion for financial reasons.
If we are truly pro-life we will also be willing to pay taxes to ensure effective biological, psychological and moral education; as well as effective financial support, jobs, childcare, healthcare etc. to support families.
Sorry about my accidental double post above. The pro-life rationale is clear:
1)Intentionally killing an innocent human person is a moral wrong.
2)Elective abortion is the killing of an innocent human person.
3)Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.
We are not talking about killing cockroaches. The key question is (once more) “what is the unborn?” People shouldn’t be allowed to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
First make abortions illegal, then birth control illegal, then all that’s not Catholic. Is that how it goes?
“Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
And here I thought that the reason we have laws, any laws, is that we don’t trust the individual to make the right decision.
Would the pro-choice crowd be OK with it if I determined that “the right decision” for me and my child was to send him to school with a gun (and without his bike helmet)? Would they trust me in that case?
Would the pro-choice crowd be OK with it if I determined that “the right decision” for me and my child was to send him to school with a gun
That would be trusting a child, not an adult.
Catholic values must be legislated into law. Persons of other religions must conform to the Catholic view or go to prison. Doesn’t matter if they and/or their religion doesn’t hold a fetus to be a person. They must agree with the Catholic view or go to prison.
There was an author from Hollywood
Who said she converted from evil to good
she said “Jesus the Christ is the way of Ms. Rice,
because he has always been misunderstood.”
-a work in progress
These types of conversions always remind me of the parable of the sowing of the seeds. It is difficult early in the year in a garden to tell what is a weed and what is the seedling, and how I have to turn to my gardening books to make the right decisions. Pray for all of our brothers and sisters who are lost on the journey and don’t know it.
I think there’s a couple of issues here echoed by Jarnor23 in the comment “conservative first Catholic second”, which I read as classic projection. Throwing the principle of life out to embrace a Democratic candidate is the very definition of being left wing first and Catholic second. Liberation theology is a similar case in point.
Also there is a very common myth perpetuated by the left that those on the left care about the poor and downtrodden more than those on the right. That is false and easily refuted – the left uses the poor and it’s false charity welfare while encouraging class envy for political gain. Real solutions that show promise but loosen the political dependency on the left like school choice are blocked.
Obviously there are many individuals with leftist political views whose personal actions are authentically charitable but the policies of high taxation extensive government intrusion and welfare does not equal charity. It’s manipulation. Dr. Sowell has a new article on the subject and of course he’s a much better communicator than I am. I recommend it.
I think SDG and joann said what I would say: Anne Rice is a new Christian, and she’s trying. She’s seriously mistaken, but she is honestly trying to work through the issues.
First make abortions illegal, then birth control illegal, then all that’s not Catholic. Is that how it goes?
Yes, that’s basically how it goes. Of course, that’s a very long-term project, and it means that this country will eventually have to become a Catholic country, like all peoples of the earth should become. But in the short-term, induced abortion and “birth control” (no birth, no control) will again have to become illegal, which (as you may or may not know) they once were not all that long ago, and in a country that has never been a Catholic country too.
It doesn’t surprise me that a woman who has spent her adult life writing about vampires would endorse Hillary Clinton.
She doesn’t like vampires any more. She’s moved on.
“The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience.”
“The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience.”
“First make abortions illegal, then birth control illegal, then all that’s not Catholic. Is that how it goes?”
“Catholic values must be legislated into law. Persons of other religions must conform to the Catholic view or go to prison. Doesn’t matter if they and/or their religion doesn’t hold a fetus to be a person. They must agree with the Catholic view or go to prison.”
There is an error in these two statements–that opposition to abortion is a Catholic or religious preference (the implication also is that it is arbitrary). The fact of the matter is that abortion is wrong by any reasonable standard. That is why there are atheist anti-abortion sites.
Vic said: Persons of other religions must conform to the Catholic view or go to prison.
It is the Catholic view that murder and stealing and fraud are sins. Should we legalise those things just because the Catholic view is that they should be against the law?
Doesn’t matter if they and/or their religion doesn’t hold a fetus to be a person. They must agree with the Catholic view or go to prison.
There are many people on this earth who think that it is okay to kidnap, murder, torture, or blow up people in the name of their religion. So, it doesn’t matter that their religion holds that it is okay to do those evil things: if they do those things and we catch them, they are to be held responsible, whether in the courts or on the battlefield.
Same with killing unborn babies. It doesn’t matter what they mistakenly believe, if they believe that it should be legal to do something horrendously evil.
Have you heard of a guy named Michael Vick? You know, in our country dogfighting is illegal, because it’s cruel and inhumane towards the dogs (non-persons) and dehumanising to those involved in it. It doesn’t matter that some people think there’s nothing wrong with watching dogs tear each other to pieces: it’s twistedly evil, and it’s against the law as it should be.
But we can do to our own unborn babies what we’re forbidden to do to non-persons. That’s the logic of your position, Vic.
You also may not have noticed that Catholics aren’t the only ones who believe that unborn babies are persons and shouldn’t be killed.
Sorry, forgot to include my name on that post.
Horrible, just horrible. Every life is s precious thing, too precious for this kind of lip-service. The “Ave Maria” sound track was schmaltzy and quite frankly, insulting.
“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
There’s a question I ask people who claim they’re “pro-choice”:
A single mother with five children is living on welfare. She discovers she’s pregnant. What should she do?
Every “pro-choice” person I’ve asked this has answered the same way–“She should have an abortion.”
Strange how none of them, not a single one, has ever answered “She should make a choice.”
They’re not “pro-choice.” “Pro” indicates what one is in favor of. If they were truly “pro-choice,” that is, in favor of choice, they would answer that she should make a choice.
They’re pro-abortion.
The fact of the matter is that abortion is wrong by any reasonable standard.
Not every religion holds a fetus to have the full rights of a person.
Well she has revieled acurratly what in the mind of Catholics who continue to vote democrate. I am not convinced by her arguments but she obviously believes what she wrote.
You need to be careful with your terminology here. An embryo has a heartbeat four weeks after conception.
It’s confusing, I know, but the way it’s “counted” by medical professionals right now, pregnancy technically begins with the first day of your last menstrual period. Thus, a woman is technically “two weeks pregnant” when she conceives, four weeks pregnant when she has a positive home pregnancy test, six weeks pregnant when a heartbeat becomes visible, etc.
If you say things like, “A four-week-old embryo has a heartbeat,” a lot of pro-abortion people will jump on that and claim you don’t know what you’re talking about.
(I’m nine weeks pregnant, by the way, which is why I’ve very recently read about the issue with dates and such! I had an abdominal ultrasound when I was almost eight weeks pregnant, and we clearly saw a baby with a beautiful heart beating at 171 beats per minute.)
Being Catholic does not mean one is supposed be either Republican or Democrat as if either party is the “right one.”
A “fetus” is a genetically distinct demonstrably (again by genetics)human organism that is highly dependent on it’s mother for survival. That’s scientific fact not religion The only real distinctions between a fetus and a baby are the developmental stage of life (human life without doubt) and the degree of dependence on the mother. A baby can be cared for by someone else but a fetus is wholly dependent on it’s birth mother. This Scientific fact. The humanity of the “fetus” is irrefutably real in terms of intrinsic DNA sequences that are novel in each child or pair of twins.
Penny wrote:
By your logic, not a single Jewish person died during the Holocaust.
At the time, Jewish people weren’t considered human under Nazi law. They were classified as “subhuman.”
Would you then agree with the assertion that no Jewish people were killed during the Holocaust since they weren’t legally considered human beings, and didn’t legally have any rights, by the country’s lawful regime?
Lisa your right – both parties are flawed. I think that Republicans are less seriously flawed than Democrats.
The humanity of the “fetus” is irrefutably real in terms of intrinsic DNA sequences that are novel in each child or pair of twins.
To many people, humanity is more than DNA.
” What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers — that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away. ”
Ok, I have to stop here. This is so sad because this is basically the same thing that Margaret Sanger claimed and we know that she paved the way to abortion on demand.
How sad.
By your logic, not a single Jewish person died during the Holocaust.
No, it’s your logic which is comparing fetuses to Jewish persons. I was referring to fetuses. Not all religions hold a fetus to be on par with an independent human being.
Obviously I believe that humanity in it’s complete form (exemplified by Christ) is more than DNA. But I was trying to make a physical scientific argument. Further no one is as complete in their humanity on Christs scale. In order to prevent subjective sliding scales of humanity we need objective measures and DNA is one such measure that allows us to say with certainty that a fetus is human and not ape or elephant or cow.
I have hopes, dreams, and prayers.
Wow. That’s pretty insubstantial and not helpful at all to the poor baby being aborted and thrown into the garbage pail.
Penny
A fetus is a dependent human being , but still human.
Sorry, forgot to close my tag.
we need objective measures and DNA is one such measure that allows us to say with certainty that a fetus is human and not ape or elephant or cow.
Your need for certainty will not be met by science, which neither declares anything certain nor does it cast itself as the judge of humanity.
A fetus is a dependent human being , but still human.
That’s your view of what’s human. Someone else may also say it’s human, but that’s not to say you and the other person will agree that the fetus has the same rights as another human. In some religions, an unborn human does not have all the rights of a born human.
Possible troll – don’t leave bait. Keep to the main subject.
What makes you so sure that YOU’RE right about what comprises a human being? What’s your authority to make that judgment? Mine is the Creator of the world.
Lots of religions claim to be in communication with God. What makes you so sure that YOU’RE special?
I’m a Scientist by profession. We do not absolutely declare certainty I agree. However we frequently state in terms of statistical confidence or from multiple lines of evidence that the probability that x is x is .9999 etc. Some of this definition. There is no doubt in an serious person that the DNA in a fetus is 1) functional 2) human relative to all other organisms by differences of thousands of nucleotides. The probability of a human mother giving birth to anything other than a human child is essentially zero. We can be certain enough to act.
There is no doubt in an serious person that the DNA in a fetus is 1) functional 2) human relative to all other organisms by differences of thousands of nucleotides.
As long as humanity is more than a bunch of cellular matter, then the line between human and non-human is not determined with any certainty by DNA.
On that Judgment Day, each of us living in these times will no doubt be asked: How could you have let the innocent killing of 48 million + babies occur during your lifetime? Will it be enough to say: I didn’t get an abortion or help another procure one? One knows deep down that we’ll all be asked -What did you personally do to bring about an end to this greatest of all human atrocities to this point in history? Did you speak out publicly against abortion? Did you pray the Rosary to end the killing? Did you take part in peaceful, public demonstrations against abortion? If not, why not? [Confession: I have not participated in the annual march in Washington, but feel we should all be doing so, and intend to next time].
I would hate to be in the position of telling our Lord that I voted for anyone whose platform was based in any way on supporting the right to continue to obtain abortions. It is a non-negotiable issue which simply cannot be marginalized or rationalized away as Ms. Rice attempts to do. We should pray for her.
Hi Ted, er, Art, Q, Elmar, whatever the troll you’re calling yourself today.
Possible troll – don’t leave bait. Keep to the main subject.
Agreed. Kyl posted the pro-life logic. The terms are clear, the propositions true, and the argument valid. Everything else is an attempt at distracting noise.
People shouldn’t be allowed to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
Does God allow you to do it?
In my neighborhood, we call Alice’s view, narrishkeit.
Not only is there a second clause to the First Ammendment (…nor shall she prohibit the free exercise thereof), but her assessment of the message of the Gospel is not the exclusive interpretation of the Democratic party. Republicans obviously think theirs is the most compassionate expression.
B’Art, you can change your name, but not the distinct waft of gnostic sensibility that permeates all your empty questions.
In keeping with the spirit of Jimmy’s sig rule, perhaps you would be good enough at least to stick to one sig per thread.
People shouldn’t be allowed to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
Does God allow you to do it?
–No… He does not.
“Thou shalt not Kill (murder)”
To allow the physical possibility of me killing the mailman is not ‘allowing it’ in the moral or legal sense –any more than I would allow my children to go play in traffic! Now my saying “do not play in traffic” my not allowing it –may not actually keep them from it –but it has to be said!
So to must it be said–to kill a little child is not to be allowed …it is murder of the innocent.
Back to the main point. Ms Rice holds political beliefs at odds with those proposed by the Church. I also vary with the Church on some topics: death penalty, validity of the War etc. I asked my priest if it was a sin to believe in the death penalty. He said I needed to be open to hearing the Church teaching, but that this was not dogma and some disagreement was acceptable because the Church’s position has changed on this point. My understanding is that the abortion question is much more clear in church teaching and less negotiable.
And this comment shows that you have never read any other post on Jimmy’s blog, nor do you know anything about the Catholic faith (or you have some pretty severe misconceptions about it).
Why don’t you come over to the forums at Catholic.com and post a thread about this subject there — I’ll gladly answer your question. That way we can keep this combox on-topic. My username there is wanner47.
To allow the physical possibility of me killing the mailman is not ‘allowing it’ in the moral or legal sense
If God doesn’t allow it in the moral or legal sense, then it’s already not allowed in the moral or legal sense.
And I am disappointed because our visiting abortion defenders are behind the times. More and more abortionist defenders are recognizing that they can’t win with question-of-humanity card. So they concede the point: she’s human, she’s innocent, but guess what? It’s justifiable to kill them in circumstances. This explains the rise of the advocacy of euthanasia (where the humanity and innocence is not in question.) It also explains why the pro-abortion position is weakening: it is a position for the truly hardened and fewer people are willing to follow them into the abyss.
Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, of the United States of America:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now the really important part of that Amendment is where it says “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”, and I think it’s this point that our politicians and judges (and voters!) should really pay attention to.
So, all religion aside, the question of the legality of abortion can be settled by answering one question: When does a human being become a human being?
I have a thought experiment that I like, that I think makes the case that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. It goes like this (maybe someone can point out flaws?):
Is it OK to end the life of a baby that was born five minutes ago? Would that be “abortion” or “murder”. I think most people would conclude that to be murder.
If it’s not OK to end the life of a baby that was born five minutes ago, is it OK to end the life of a baby that will be born five minutes from now? Would that be “abortion” or “murder”. I think that most people would still conclude that it is murder.
At this point, we’ve concluded that even though a child is still in the womb, to end it’s life CAN be murder. So then, is there a point when we can end it’s life and it’s NOT murder? For the sake of argument, let’s pick an arbitrary time when it’s OK. If for example we say that an abortion is OK any time during the first trimester of pregnancy, the question then becomes how do you define the first trimester?
Suppose hypothetically that you knew the exact second of conception, and that you knew that without a shadow of a doubt that the first trimester would end at midnight on a particular day. Is it OK to end the life of the developing fetus at 12:01? By definition, that would be murder. Is it OK to end the life of the developing fetus at 11:59? By definition that would be abortion, but by pointing out a ridiculous scenario, we see the ridiculousness of setting an arbitrary time for when it’s OK to have an abortion. You can stretch it to even more ridiculous lengths: What about at 11:59 and 59 seconds? How about 11:59 and 59.99 seconds? You can keep going but at a certain point we have to ask the question, how do we know if we really got the abortion done before midnight?
Of course, the above is hypothetical and always will be because we don’t really know the exact moment of conception, and we don’t know the exact moment that the first trimester ends. The same above argument works with any arbitrary time. “If the infant could survive on its own outside of the womb it’s murder, if not it’s abortion”. How do we know when it could survive? If we can definitively say that it wouldn’t survive before midnight on a particular day, is it OK to have an abortion at 11:59 and 59.99 seconds?
Our law, particularly as it pertains to capital punishment demands that the guilt of the defendant be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the first hand, these unborn children aren’t accused of any crime (capital or otherwise). Second, if they were so accused they aren’t being given the benefit of a trial. Why should religious beliefs even come into play on the subject of abortion? Why don’t we simply point to our constitution and let our laws defend these innocents?
Thanks for letting me rant at length…I’d be interested in hearing about holes in my logic, but to me it seems pretty tight.
Thanks, B’Art.
Just wondering now… Is it possible that ALL the confused/confusing voices on this thread are one person?
Penny, Sarah, Vic, Tom… Hillary Clinton… is ANY of you NOT B’Art?
Excuse my candor, but AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! This is so unbelievably frustrating to read, I can’t imagine any sane or logical person holding positions such as these.
I noticed how often she wrote “I feel” and only rarely wrote “I think”. That would explain the illogic, as feelings don’t have IQs.
Jimi Hahn: Can you be more specific?
“And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure –as a student of history – that Americans should give up the right to abortion.” Let’s give this (il)logic a test drive. “And much as I am horrified by rape, I am not sure — as a student of history — that Americans should give up the right to rape.” Ooh, that’s a smooth ride–smooth as Bush’s acceptance at a NOW rally.
If God doesn’t allow it in the moral or legal sense, then it’s already not allowed in the moral or legal sense.
….hum. Well then I will let ‘Planned Parenthood’ know that what they are doing is illegal as well….
But seriously — what I said stands.
Beau your logic works for me. The only way around it is by forcing the definition of a human being to include birth, which is what the Supreme Court has done. If a person is driven enough by their own will they warp the sense of words and ignore logic. Then they wrap their “reasoning” in complex language to hide their illogic and viola! We have Ros vs Wade.
Devastating illustration Jimi
One reason (one) that I can not support any pro-choice candidate is that the pro-choice mindset to me reveals a deep and serious inability to reason and to think logically.
In other words, holding a pro-choice position is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of demonstrating an individual’s ability (or willingness) to think.
If a person can’t or won’t think logically, they don’t deserve to run anything, let alone the whole country. Abortion isn’t just immoral, it is logically untenable… unsupportable by even the most flimsy rules of evidence, and I don’t trust the judgment – on any issue – of anyone who CAN support it.
I used to support abortion “rights”, and at the time I couldn’t reason my way out of a wet paper bag. I’m glad I wasn’t in charge of anything serious.
p.s. What’s the deal with using the term “anti-abortion,” as opposed to “Pro Life.” Why would someone who is allegedly Pro Life use a term which every Pro Lifer I’ve ever met see as a pejoritive term?
To quote a friend about the article:
“In a still, quiet voice…she is wrong.”
When I was young and foolish, and agnostic, I used to buy into the idea that it was a women’s choice and that men had no say in the subject. It was a convenient excuse. I hadn’t thought seriously about abortion and it was easier not to.
Ms. Rice is right that there’s no end in sight to abortion in the United States– even if they could, only a few states would ban it outright, and even there some few desperate women would seek out the infamous back-alley abortions.
But by simply shrugging her shoulders and saying she doesn’t know the answer, she’s failing to recognize the true magnitude of the issue– namely, that probably the most fundamental function of any government is to protect the lives of the human beings within its jurisdiction. If fetuses are human beings, then our government has massively failed to perform this function. This failure is even more catastrophic when the government actually pays for killings, as Hillary Clinton would have it do.
Of course, if the government must protect “human beings” then it must have a way of deciding who is and is not human. Thus, although this may be partially a religious question, it is also an indispensible civic question– in a way that other religious questions, such as dietary or prayer obligations, are not. So the commenter(s) who think(s) that Catholics shouldn’t be able to support laws to protect the lives of the unborn because it’s a “religious question” might just as well argue that no person whose religious convictions prohibit murder or theft can ever advocate laws against those actions, because they are subject to religious prohibitions as well.
Having said all this, I also disapprove of the narrowmindedness of equating Catholicism with conservatism. As a wise man (I think it was C.S. Lewis) said, all revealed religions must be conservative dogmatically– when God tells you something, you don’t go messin’ with it. But as Ms. Rice points out, the values of the Gospel (feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, support widows and orphans, etcf.) are in many ways very “liberal,” in modern terms. Whether you want the government involved in enacting these values is a prudential question, but whether these things should be done is emphatically not. If abortion (and possibly gay marriage) wasn’t an issue, I wouldn’t fault anyone who mad the prudential judgment that the citizens of a mostly-Christian nation can most effectively care for the least in their midst by government action, and then concluded that the Democratic Party was best at this.
In fact, even the pro-life argument fits into the classic liberal paradigm of government forcing the strong and wealthy to sacrifice in order to support the weak and needy: compared to her fetus, a pregnant woman is immensely powerful and wealthy.
As I argued above, for government to permit her to hire someone to take the fetus’s life is an abdication of duty of the first magnitude, that genuinely threatens the existence of any society that permits it. By failing to recognize this tidal wave that is overwhelming all of Western civilization, Ms. Rice has shrugged her shoulders at the impracticability of building a seawall or levee and has turned to piling sandcastles on the beach instead.
Very nicely stated Francis.
She’s saying, essentially, that we can’t be successful. Mother Teresa, on the other hand, said: “God doesn’t expect us to be successful; He expects us to be faithful.”
by simply shrugging her shoulders and saying she doesn’t know the answer
But she didn’t. She said, “if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.” She’s being active in advancing what she believes is the answer.
Tolkien said the same thing a little differently when he had Galadriel speak of having “fought…the long defeat”, which, of course, eventually led to victory.
Just some comments on the faith of Anne Rice. It is my understanding that she is not Catholic herself and so would not in her own mind even be accountable to Catholic moral teaching. Also to my knowledge, her current literary projects in writing about the life of Jesus draw heavily from gnostic sources (Nag Hammadi library) for material. She is a long way from orthodox Christian belief today though she may end up there before her journey is complete.
In a sense it may be unfortunate that her stature allows her to take the mantle of Christianity and speak as if she is a prophet and perhaps she should be publicly refuted for taking such a stand. However, there ought to be some charity shown or else she may deflect herself from the path in reaction or maybe even worse those who listen to her might find themselves repelled by the nastiness they might perceive in Christians who rightly reject her conclusions.
It is my understanding that she is not Catholic herself
FYI, she said she returned to the Catholic Church.
Anne can dance around the issue of life all she wants. She can say that she is seeking a “solution”. She can believe that there is some miracle that will come to end the “horror of abortion” but yet she must support Roe v. Wade until such a time comes??? I frankly don’t believe her and I think she’s being disingenious. Overturning Roe v. Wade will save children’s lives, that’s a fact. It’s as simple as that. Will it save most of them? No, it won’t. But it will save some and that’s enough for me to support overturning it. She’s a typical liberal whose emotions have gotten in front of her ability to reason. Where in her post is the pity and sorrow for the children who are ripped limb from limb every single day in this country??? Doing something to save even one of them is an act of heroism. Anne Rice, shame on you.
I have struggled with this sort of question myself: for whom to vote in the primary. No realistic presidential candidate on the Democratic side if pro-life. On the Republican side, there is a mix of publicly pro-life and pro-choice candidates. If I vote in the primary for one of the pro-life candidates and he is nominated, does it seal victory for the pro-choice Democrat? It could happen if the pro-life candidates are all much less electable in general. If I vote in the primary for one of the pro-choice Republicans, do I get someone publicly pro-choice, but on record promising to appoint “conservative” judges who might go my way on Roe? What if, come November, all I have is pro-choice options? That’s what happened in the last gubernatorial race here. Do I stay home? Vote for myself?
On the other hand, I think Ms. Rice is wrong on the Democrats being better at governing according to Gospel values. She is enamored of the government welfare state and thinks that Iraq was a bad war. I won’t argue these points, but the totality of the Democratic platform in the current election cycle doesn’t work for me.
For what it’s worth, I met Ms. Rice at a book signing for a few seconds. She struck me as alright, though kind of frail and tired that day.
TO THE POSTER MOST RECENTLY CALLING HIM/HERSELF “LAURA” AND “CARLA”:
From your IP address I can see that you have been very active in this and other comboxes under a wide variety of pseudonyms, as has already been guessed by other readers.
RULE 21 states: “Commenters in the combox are to use either their real name or a (non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that distinguishes them from others when posting comments.”
Following a suggestion made above, I am hereby issuing an AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION of this rule: Commenters are to restrict themselves, at least within any single combox thread, to ONE (non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that NOT ONLY distinguishes them from others but also IDENTIFIES them as one and the same person when they post repeatedly.
Users who post repeatedly within the same combox thread under multiple names may be presumed to be seeking to create an artificial impression of a wide variety of conflicting opinions on multiple sides. This activity will result in the poster being disinvited to participate in the blog.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Users who post repeatedly within the same combox thread under multiple names may be presumed to be seeking to create the impression of a wide variety of conflicting opinions on multiple sides.
That’s the impression the world gives, a wide variety of conflicting opinions on multiple sides.
Then there should be no need to stack the deck, or stuff the ballot box, or whatever, with a battery of quick-change secret identities. Should there? Just let the world be itself.
I wonder if Ms. Vampire, as a student of Vampire history and as someone who is endorsing a Vampire for President, thinks Michael Vick should give up his “right” to torture puppies. After all, how can we be sure that all of those advocating anti-puppy torture positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere?
Tom’s next post:
“First make puppy torture illegal … then all that’s not Catholic. Is that how it goes?”
“I wonder if Ms. Vampire, as a student of Vampire history and as someone who is endorsing a Vampire for President…”
Ms. Rice has stopped, as far as I know, writing her vampire fiction. The last book I know of from her was about Christ, and was a decent read I thought. Move on, I think, and stick to the issue of her political statement.
Just let the world be itself.
I am.
So Hillary,
Are you pro-choice with respect to one’s decision to have slaves?
I think Ms. Rice is wrong on the Democrats being better at governing according to Gospel values.
I think the Democrats have the advantage of a more transparent form of compassion–it’s more obvious that you’re meeting an immediate need if you give a man a fish than if you stop and teach a man to fish, even if you have to come back and give him another one tomorrow because he can’t get one himself.
I think Rice is right about abortion not being ended without the Democratic Party, though–in the sense that it will require Democrats to stop supporting abortion, Republicans not being powerful or numerous enough to do it without help from across the aisle. Is that what she meant?
As much as I disagree with Ms Rice here. Her return to the Church and her authorship of a Christ centered book shows a great deal of improvement and shows an openness to change. Who knows, maybe in time she’ll come the rest of way.
JP- Hey, you stole my line… although I was going to say simple murder.
After all, despite all the laws against it, desperate people still see murder as the only possible solution to their problems, and many people take the risk and go outside the law to do it, despite the risks to their lives and freedom. Why what right do we judge that they are wrong? It’s not fair of us to force our views on them. We should work to make sure that murder is much safer for the murderers……
Next up necrophilia, cannibalisms, any other perversion you can think of…..
Deception is the refuge of the weak and cowardly. That’s about all I need to know about “Laura”, or whoever.
JP and Foxfier –
Yeah! Lots of people feel the need to murder… and they are likely already under a great deal of stress… who are WE to make CRIMINALS of all these unfortunate people?
By legalizing murder we can regulate it and keep it in a more controlled environment, making it safer and more sanitary for everyone.
I mean, wouldn’t you rather get a nice quick injection than be beaten to death by a blunt instrument? Think about it.
No more back-alley murders!
I suggest that as our protest symbol we adopt a “no” sign over a club or baseball bat of some kind.
Not all religions hold a fetus to be on par with an independent human being.
The status and nature of a human fetus is not a religious question, that is, it’s truth or falsity does not depend on the truth or falsity of a particular religion. Rather, it is something determined by human reason.
First things first. It’s quite mistaken to doubt whether a human fetus is a person when one hasn’t even defined what a “person” is. Hint: the definition of person also is not dependent on the truth or falsity of any particular religion, but is accessible to anyone who can reason.
The status and nature of a human fetus is not a religious question, that is, it’s truth or falsity does not depend on the truth or falsity of a particular religion. Rather, it is something determined by human reason.
Excuse me, folks, but isn’t it when you murder a pregnant woman, that there is two counts of murder?
“Rather, it is something determined by human reason.”
I would say it is something UNDERSTOOD or grasped through human reason… it is DETERMINED and established by the will of God. Whether a being is human is not a matter of any personal or collective judgment, but is an immutable, absolute truth (gasp!).
Right, Tim. “Determined” is the wrong word for what I was trying to say.
Actually, “determined” can be used in either sense (ground-consequence or cause-effect). Just like “because.” For clarity, “understood” might be preferable… but “determined” isn’t wrong. 🙂
I figured that, Jordan, and of course you are correct, SDG, but I think some might have taken “determined” the wrong way in that context.
There ARE those who think that way… “What does it mean to be human? Whatever we decide it means…”.
It’s confusing, I know, but the way it’s “counted” by medical professionals right now, pregnancy technically begins with the first day of your last menstrual period.
That’s only for the purpose of ascertaining the probable due date. It’s not a claim that the woman actually was pregnant from the very first day of her last menstrual period.
Thanks, SDG. Just striving for clarity, that’s all.
And yes, that was me forgetting to include my name again. . . .
tag off again. Sorry, I have a head cold and am not thinking too clearly today!!
Did it work this time??
isn’t it when you murder a pregnant woman, that there is two counts of murder?
Only if the fetus was at the time viable.
“Only if the fetus was at the time viable.”
Actually, that’s not true. Laws vary from state to state, of course, but viability is not a necessary criteria.
Viability is a necessary criteria here.
Viability is a vague criteria – hard to define and ever changing as medicine improves and therefore a poor standard for laws
Only if the fetus was at the time viable.
Laura,
How do you define ‘viable’?
How do you define ‘viable’?
I don’t define it, but it’s often said to mean capable of surviving outside the womb to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
The real question is what Laura means by “necessary.” Viability may be a relevant legal criterion in some legislation, and insofar as we invoke such legislation it may be “necessary” to discuss it; that doesn’t make it a “necessary” criterion in any larger sense.
Since I wouldn’t lay too much weight on such legislation to begin with, I’m not sure viability is a crucial criterion in any case. The fetus is a human organism before it is viable.
Viability may be a relevant legal criterion in some legislation, and insofar as we invoke such legislation it may be “necessary” to discuss it, that doesn’t make it a “necessary” criterion in any larger sense.
It’s more than relevant when determining if there’s a count of murder. In that regard, it’s necessary if the statute requires it.
The fetus is a human organism before it is viable.
But it might not be legally defined as a person.
Laura,
You fail in your distinction since the very fact that a fetus had resulted from fertilization of the egg by the sperm already, in itself, is indicative of ‘viability’.
The degrees to which you are alluding to seems, to me, places some import on perhaps genetic defects; however, even in face of these, that does not take away from this aforementioned fact.
You fail in your distinction since the very fact that a fetus had resulted from fertilization of the egg by the sperm already, in itself, is indicative of ‘viability’.
As I already said, the viability spoken of in the statute is in regard to the fetus’s ability to survive outside the uterus, not inside.
Laura: No quarrels with the observations in two your most recent posts.
Tolkien said the same thing a little differently when he had Galadriel speak of having “fought…the long defeat”, which, of course, eventually led to victory.
Not quite true: the Elves lost. They had to leave the world. They simply didn’t lose quite as badly as they would have had Sauron won. Galadriel’s words in the chapter you quote show that she knows quite well that she will lose no matter who wins.
I worry that the same thing might be true for our culture. Western (and Christian) civilization is besieged on both sides by leftist liberalism and right-wing Islamism. Can it survive in its present incarnation, or is it a matter of deciding which kind of loss would be worse?
Anyway I think think Anne Rice is being too harshly judged by a lot of people here. There’s no reason to question her motives or accuse her of being disingenuous or a Democratic plant. Maybe she really does think that the Republican platform (a) simply won’t do anything very meaningful about abortion (true so far) and (b) is inferior to the Democratic one in other important respects.
Personally I’m more inclined to say that neither side is any good–I certainly don’t have much faith in Republican power to stem the tide of cultural and social decay–than to say that despite initial appearances the Democrats are on the whole better. But it does seem like Ms Rice is at least speaking in good faith.
Michael Sullivan,
Your comment triggered to questions in my mind regarding her opinion.
1)Why does she think the Democrats who have no motivation to do so will effect any more change than the Republicans who at least profess to want to do something?
2)Why, given the above, does she think the Democrats are going to hold to their professed opinions on OTHER MATTERS, better than the Republicans on the Abortion issue?
This betrays a serious sense of bias and not uncritical analysis that she attempts to portray in the post.
Laura,
The age of “viability” is getting smaller and smaller every day. This news story tells of a baby who was born at 21 weeks and survived. That’s early in the second trimester. In some states, abortion is still legal at that point. Do you think that abortion past week 21 should be outlawed because the age of viability can be argued to be 21 weeks? And what standard magically determines that a baby is less fit to live at 20 weeks than at 21 weeks?
What about the babies who were killed at 21 weeks back when the age of viability was only about 28 weeks or so? Were they less fit to live, or has the standard magically changed along with medical technology? Why?
What is completely absent from Ms. Rice’s statement is any attempt to explain or substantiate the basis for her belief that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who, notwithstanding her longstanding pro-abortion position, would be most likely to lead and govern in a manner that would be consistent with the social values expressed in the gospels.
I would like to know why Ms. Rice believes that, as president, Clinton would pursue social policies that would care for the less fortunate people in our society (i.e., feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.) better than any other candidate? What specific policies would Clinton pursue that would give her the edge on that score over, say, Republicans such as Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, who also (at least at face value) are pro-life?
In the absence of that reasoned analysis, this whole thing smacks of an empty attempt to justify voting for a woman who has been rabidly in favor of abortion rights her entire political career. Given Clinton’s voting record–including voting in favor of partial birth abortion and her 100% “pro-choice” voting rating by NARAL–she would have to be virtual Mother Teresa in every other respect to convince me that, as a Catholic, I could in good conscience hold my nose and vote for her despite her pro-abortion views based on the belief that she would be more likely than any other candidate to care for the needy in society.
Nope. I’m not buying it.
Laura is right; as the law stands “human organism” does not necessarily equal “human person.” But this just a slight variation on the point that everyone is complaining about– that fetuses, which are human organisms, don’t even have the most fundamental human right to life. Legal personhood is a prudential matter, I think, but not killing human organisms is not.
Chris,
good questions both. I’m not defending Ms Rice’s logic or conclusions, only her sincerity.
p.s. What’s the deal with using the term “anti-abortion,” as opposed to “Pro Life.” Why would someone who is allegedly Pro Life use a term which every Pro Lifer I’ve ever met see as a pejoritive term?
I’m not Roman Catholic and I’m not pro-life.
I am anti-abortion. I cannot be considered (strictly) pro-life because I support, in some instances, the death penalty. I embrace “anti-abortion” because that’s what I am.
On the other hand, pro-abortion fits better than pro-choice. If you don’t think so, search for “dugger family” and witness the hatred and vitriol aimed that that family because of their choice (I won’t link because some of the language is pretty foul).
they are “pro-choice” right up until a family has too many children to suit the “pro-choice” tastes.
that the Republican platform (a) simply won’t do anything very meaningful about abortion (true so far)
How can anybody say this?
Among other things, they’ve installed two Justices that may very well reverse the tide of pro-abortion laws whereas the Democrats have not only proven that they won’t commit any efforts against abortion, but that they are very much in favor for it!
Why would anyone trust Hillary to advance values such as “feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies”? Hillary still seems to be struggling with the value of not brutally murdering helpless infants, so its hard to believe she’s going to do much good on those other issues.
Do you think that abortion past week 21 should be outlawed because the age of viability can be argued to be 21 weeks? And what standard magically determines that a baby is less fit to live at 20 weeks than at 21 weeks?
The courts have said viability is “a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability” and that “it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which is essentially a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period. The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the attending physician.”
What about the babies who were killed at 21 weeks back when the age of viability was only about 28 weeks or so? Were they less fit to live, or has the standard magically changed along with medical technology? Why?
The rule on viability has been and still is that viability is “a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability.” What’s changed is the medical judgment, skill and technical ability.
“What’s changed is the medical judgment, skill and technical ability.”
Exactly. Which is why viability is not a reliable or necessary MORAL criterion for determining whether a murder has occurred.
Legally, whatever… abortion is legal, but still wrong and evil. The courts are sometimes wrong.
Which is why viability is not a reliable or necessary MORAL criterion for determining whether a murder has occurred.
Determining whether a “murder” has occurred always involves human judgment.
Why would anyone trust Hillary to advance values such as “feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies”? Hillary still seems to be struggling with the value of not brutally murdering helpless infants, so its hard to believe she’s going to do much good on those other issues.
So since Hillary might be able to do some good on other fronts, let’s just simply overlook the fact that she supports the murder of infants.
What’s the big deal anyway?
What’s the life of a human baby worth?
I mean, folks dump babies in trash bins and elsewhere, right?
Also, didn’t the Lord say:
“Anyone who can be trusted in little matters can also be trusted in important matters. But anyone who is unjust in little matters will be unjust in important matters.” (Luke 16:10)
As the murder of infants is by no means a ‘little matter’; how much more can Hillary be trusted in even greater matters than this?
“Determining whether a “murder” has occurred always involves human judgment.”
Yes, but the fact, the truth of the matter will always be “yes” or “no” prior to man’s judgment. Human judgment merely strives to FIND OUT whether there has been a murder. It is not man’s judgment that makes the proposition true or false.
Human judgment merely strives to FIND OUT whether there has been a murder.
Yes, they seek to do that by determining viability.
How can anybody say this? Among other things, they’ve installed two Justices that may very well reverse the tide of pro-abortion laws
Sorry, but at this point “may very well” doesn’t cut it for me. Weren’t the majority of the present and the former court appointed by Republicans? Weren’t the Republicans in sole power for years? I’ll believe that they’ll produce results when I start to see some.
Although I wouldn’t necessarily come to the same conclusion regarding Clinton as Rice has done, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that there are better and more successful ways of ending abortion than overturning Roe v. Wade. If we wanted to guarantee that this country fought no more unjust wars (something that Catholic doctorine is as forceful on as abortion), a simple way would be to strip the government of the power to declare war. No military, no war, no possibility for unjust killing. And yet anyone can see the problem with this.
If the American Communist Party had an absolutely, positively no legal abortion ever stance, am I supposed to vote Communist? In a complex political environment, no one single issue can dominate. One can quibble as to how much better the Democrats actually do on other Catholic issues, such as feeding the hungry, if at all. But Catholics should be able to honestly disagree, in good faith, about the mechanisms by which they would like their government to acheive Catholic goals. The idea that a Catholic must be Conservative in the sense of the current American political landscape is short-sighted.
As a side comment about abortion and personhood: I know of no person who can be flash frozen in liquid nitrogen and then thawed out years later to survive. It’s something to think about.
Sorry, but at this point “may very well” doesn’t cut it for me. Weren’t the majority of the present and the former court appointed by Republicans? Weren’t the Republicans in sole power for years? I’ll believe that they’ll produce results when I start to see some.
Oh yeah, I can see how the Democrats’ adamant stand to uphold pro-abortion laws will do wonders for the pro-life movement.
Although I wouldn’t necessarily come to the same conclusion regarding Clinton as Rice has done, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that there are better and more successful ways of ending abortion than overturning Roe v. Wade. If we wanted to guarantee that this country fought no more unjust wars (something that Catholic doctorine is as forceful on as abortion), a simple way would be to strip the government of the power to declare war. No military, no war, no possibility for unjust killing. And yet anyone can see the problem with this.
And yet slavery used to be legal.
This sort of rhetoric should’ve been used in those days since I’m certain it would’ve truly advanced efforts then.
If the American Communist Party had an absolutely, positively no legal abortion ever stance, am I supposed to vote Communist? In a complex political environment, no one single issue can dominate. One can quibble as to how much better the Democrats actually do on other Catholic issues, such as feeding the hungry, if at all. But Catholics should be able to honestly disagree, in good faith, about the mechanisms by which they would like their government to acheive Catholic goals. The idea that a Catholic must be Conservative in the sense of the current American political landscape is short-sighted.
Where did I say that this was the only consideration that should be made when deciding upon a candidate?
How absurd! It reminds me of Godwin’s law — only instead of Nazis, we have the Reds.
Certainly, there are other elements of a candidate one must scrutinize.
Personally, for me, abortion is only one of other major considerations in selecting the better candidate.
Esau,
you need to stop misrepresenting people. I made no claims whatsoever that Democrats are better than Republicans on this issue. They are in fact much worse. I don’t support them one bit.
You didn’t in fact address my statements at all, although you quoted them. My point was not that Democratic victories would be a good thing for pro-life issues. They wouldn’t, of course. My point was that it’s very questionable whether further Republican victories would help either, and whether past Republican victories have been fruitful for the pro-life cause. My point is that so far it’s made fairly little difference who’s in charge.
I’m certainly not saying “Vote Democrat!” But I sure don’t see how “Vote Republican!” is a solution. So far it hasn’t been a solution, though the Republicans would like us to think that it is.
whether past Republican victories have been fruitful for the pro-life cause
Michael Sullivan,
It seems you want instant results in this regard almost overnight; however, you seem to neglect the fact that we are fighting against legal precedence here and, thus, it will be an upward battle.
That is, it will take much, much time before we can observe any definitive results as far as the Law goes in terms of abortion.
Alito and Roberts will need to take (understandably) measured steps while at the same time ensuring that they do not betray their responsiblities in terms of their official capacities.
In other words, it will take many, many battles before the war is actually won.
As a side comment about abortion and personhood: I know of no person who can be flash frozen in liquid nitrogen and then thawed out years later to survive. It’s something to think about.
No, the inability to survive freezing and thawing is not what makes someone a person. Neither Boethius nor any other great thinker has ever included such a property in their definition of “person.” The classic definition of “person” is “an individual substance of a rational nature.” A more precise definition of “person” is “a substance of a rational nature, complete, subsisting in and of itself, existing apart from others.
“Legal personhood” is something else altogether, and it’s been a long time since the concept of “legal personhood” parted ways with reality. That’s why it’s possible for a corporation to a legal person, whereas unborn babies are not legal persons. If we can get corporations removed from the category of legal persons and get all babies reutned that category, the world will be a much happier place.
A more precise definition of “person” is “a substance of a rational nature, complete, subsisting in and of itself, existing apart from others.
Do you think that describes a fetus?
Do you think that describes a fetus?
Oh, without a doubt a human fetus meets that definition of person. Fetuses don’t just wink out of existence when other persons (such as their mothers) die or cease to exist, so they subsist in and of themselves. They are not mere parts of other persons the way a toe is a part of a person, so they exist apart from others. They are complete, meaning they have within themselves by nature all that they need to be a fetus. They are substances, that is, they are things that exist. Lastly, they are rational by nature, since they have the innate potentiality to develop rational cognitive faculties. (Similarly, a person who is brain damaged or mentally impaired in some way does not stop being a person just because his rational faculties cannot function.)
Human fetus a person? Open and shut.
Well said as usual, Jordan.
WOW! First off who new Ann Rice was a Christian, all here other books lead me to believe she was a Wiccan. Also I am so sick and tired of hearing the we can’t force our morality on others. Oh really so the whole Civil War thing going to war over the injustice of slavery was wrong?!?! Yes most historians will tell you that it was about states rights and all that, but when you boil it down it was about imposing one’s morality on another’s. We must stand up to moral injustices wherever they are.
WOW! First off who new Ann Rice was a Christian, all here other books lead me to believe she was a Wiccan. Also I am so sick and tired of hearing the we can’t force our morality on others. Oh really so the whole Civil War thing going to war over the injustice of slavery was wrong?!?! Yes most historians will tell you that it was about states rights and all that, but when you boil it down it was about imposing one’s morality on another’s. We must stand up to moral injustices wherever they are.
Fetuses don’t just wink out of existence when other persons (such as their mothers) die or cease to exist
A nonviable fetus “winks out” with the winking out of the mother, i.e. cellular death spreads about.
They are not mere parts of other persons the way a toe is a part of a person, so they exist apart from others.
A nonviable fetus will not exist apart from the uterus any more than your toe will exist apart from your foot. Both will rot after they’re severed.
They are complete, meaning they have within themselves by nature all that they need to be a fetus.
Yes, all they need… to be a fetus! But the issue was what it takes to be a person, not a fetus. A fetus is always a fetus. It doesn’t take anything for a fetus to be a fetus. So you aren’t saying anything.
They are substances, that is, they are things that exist.
Everything exists in some form or another, even if it’s just conceptual substance. So again, you haven’t said anything.
Lastly, they are rational by nature, since they have the innate potentiality to develop rational cognitive faculties.
That means they’re potentially rational. That’s not the same as saying they are rational. Your claim is to insist a caterpillar is a butterfly by nature. It’s not. It’s a caterpillar which may potentially become a butterfly, if perhaps a bird doesn’t eat it first.
Similarly, a person who is brain damaged or mentally impaired in some way does not stop being a person just because his rational faculties cannot function.
It’s not just that “his rational faculties cannot function.” It’s that he doesn’t have rational faculties. Damage is destruction. When your computer fries, you no longer have a computer. A computer by definition computes. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer.
another thought. After reading the Rice column again something else comes to mind. That is the Roe V Wade stopping abortion. She is absolutely right that it won’t it will return to the state level. To that I say Amen. Let it go back to the states, heck let’s even put it to a national vote, let our week kneed congress vote on the issue, give us the citizens of the United States the right to vote yea or nay on the issue. Isn’t that how it is supposed to be?
Laura,
Please define ‘nonviable fetus’.
I would like to know exactly your grasp on this.
When fertilization occurs in the laboratory and a fetus results, that in itself is indicative of viability.
The only other factors that may have a bearing on the overall well-being of the fetus are such things as genetic defects; however, this is a whole other matter altogether.
I don’t just listen to words, but watch people’s actions. I have yet to see many pro-Choice Democrats support reasonable measures to reduce abortions such as parental notification laws. The Republicans seem to be leading the fight in general. Yes, there are pro-life Dems, but their party doesn’t support them.
If they can’t or won’t work to help reduce the number of abortions, why vote for them?
Ms. Rice does relatively well in her attempts to justify her endorsement, but I see her article as just that: a justification. It appears to me that she wanted to endorse Hillary and then tried to work it so she wouldn’t appear to be going against the Catholic school of thought. I don’t think it worked.
Please define ‘nonviable fetus’.
The courts defined it in terms of the fetus’s ability to survive apart from the uterus, even with artificial aid, as determined by the attending physician as “a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability”.
When fertilization occurs in the laboratory and a fetus results
An embryo results.
The only other factors that may have a bearing on the overall well-being of the fetus are such things as genetic defects
The mother’s well-being also has a bearing on the well-being of the fetus.
Actually, I think they call it a zygote at that stage, not an embryo. Etymologically, of course, “fetus” (“little one”) is denotatively correct.
In some religions, an unborn human does not have all the rights of a born human.
In many religions, some born humans do not have all the rights of other born humans. Like the born babies sacrificed to Moloch.
When your computer fries, you no longer have a computer. A computer by definition computes. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer.
Therefore, of course, when you turn off your computer, you are suspending its computerhood until such time as you turn it on again. And it’s very unlikely you can buy a computer; they sell them in boxes, where they aren’t plugged in, so they aren’t computing.
“Yes, they seek to do that by determining viability.”
Only partially, and not in all cases. Viability matters to some courts and not to others.
“A nonviable fetus “winks out” with the winking out of the mother, i.e. cellular death spreads about.”
“A nonviable fetus will not exist apart from the uterus any more than your toe will exist apart from your foot. Both will rot after they’re severed.”
How is it that a zygote may be removed from one woman’s uterus and be implanted in another? An unborn child is therefore demonstrably NOT just part of the mother’s body. Technology may develop to the point where there won’t BE any non-viable fetuses. Viability is not any measure of humanity or personhood… it’s a measure of VIABILITY.
“It doesn’t take anything for a fetus to be a fetus.”
Really? As opposed to what? A rock? Actually, it takes a lot for a fetus just to be a fetus from one moment to the next. And how do YOU KNOW that a fetus is not rational?
“Your claim is to insist a caterpillar is a butterfly by nature.”
No, that would be insisting that a fetus is an adult. Fetuses and adults are the same type of beings (human persons) at different stages, just as a larval member of the species Danaus Plexippus is as much a Danaus Plexippus as an adult.
“It’s not just that “his rational faculties cannot function.” It’s that he doesn’t have rational faculties.”
And you know this how? What if his rational faculties are just miniscule? That’s still qualitatively different than a plant or a dust speck.
“Damage is destruction. When your computer fries, you no longer have a computer. A computer by definition computes. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer.”
Not so with people. I go through several hours every night making no use of my rational faculties, and that does not make me NOT a human or a person while I’m asleep.
Mercy, such thrashing, such frenzied labor to deny that the unborn are people… What are you afraid of?
This whole “viability” argument reminds me of Dred Scott… you know, wherein a black man is declared to be only 2/3 of a person. Or Nazi Germany, where Jews were determined not to be human at all.
In both instances what is obviously a person is deemed to be NOT a “real” person by the introduction of some arbitrary characteristic… size or race or viability or the ability to communicate… any number of convenient things.
Maybe even the abilty to eat and drink.
Tim,
Where does the Dred Scott decision say that a Black is worth 2/3 of a person? It had to do with the return of black slaves who escaped.
As I recall, the US constitution had something to do with slaves counting as 2/3 person for voting reasons. I think this was at the request of the non-Slave states. I believe that the slave states wanted the slaves to count as a full person for voting purposes (of course, they weren’t going to let slave votes, so it was in their best interest).
That’s true, Jeb.
It was the slave states that wanted (non-voting) slaves to “count” as full persons for the sake of inflated representation, the better to maintain slavery, and the non-slave states argued that if slaves were property then they shouldn’t get the same representation as free men, the better to minimize the representation of slave states and ultimately end slavery. People get bent out of shape about that “two-thirds of a person” thing when actually it worked toward the advantage of the abolitionist movement.
Of course, Dred Scott did rule that slaves remained property even in non-slave states, so Tim J’s essential point is accurate: The Supreme Court did rule against the full human rights, essentially the full humanity, of human beings.
P.S. Jeb, if I’m not mistaken, I once made exactly the same error as Tim here — and you called me on it too! 😀
To paraphrase Luciano Pavarotti’s question about a then-popular “singing” group: “Who is Anne Rice?”
Okay, okay… I am obviously NOT a historian. 🙂
Thanks for the correction.
I should have said;
“The whole ‘viability’ argument reminds me of something bad that happened a while ago regarding black slaves or something… look it up”.
It’s very unlikely you can buy a computer; they sell them in boxes, where they aren’t plugged in, so they aren’t computing.
When buying for computing purposes, I look to their potential for computing. When not computing, they can be paperweights, doorstops, decorative, etc.
How is it that a zygote may be removed from one woman’s uterus and be implanted in another?
A zygote is not a fetus.
An unborn child is therefore demonstrably NOT just part of the mother’s body.
Even if you could transplant a fetus from one person to another, you can do similar things with toes.
Viability is not any measure of humanity or personhood… it’s a measure of VIABILITY.
That’s how you see it. But someone else may see it as a measure of personhood.
Actually, it takes a lot for a fetus just to be a fetus from one moment to the next.
You added the words “from one moment to the next.” That involves change. But for a fetus to be what it is does not involve change.
And how do YOU KNOW that a fetus is not rational?
Who said it’s not rational? The remark the poster made was that a fetus is POTENTIALLY rational. My comment was that if a fetus is potentially rational, that is not indicative that the fetus is rational.
Fetuses and adults are the same type of beings (human persons) at different stages, just as a larval member of the species Danaus Plexippus is as much a Danaus Plexippus as an adult.
Fetus and adult are two different types of being(s). And as different types, they have different characteristics, not the same. If it’s your contention that both type fetus and type adult are rational, it was the poster’s contention that a fetus is POTENTIALLY rational.
And you know this how? What if his rational faculties are just miniscule?
The poster stated that “his rational faculties cannot function.” If what you call a refrigerator cannot function, then it is not a refrigerator, for it cannot do what a refrigerator can do. If what you call rational faculties cannot function, then it is not rational faculties, whether miniscule or not, for it cannot do what rational faculties can do.
I go through several hours every night making no use of my rational faculties, and that does not make me NOT a human or a person while I’m asleep.
That’s what you suppose.
such frenzied labor to deny that the unborn are people
But I haven’t made any such denial.
Is “Laura” really claiming that a computer isn’t really a computer if it isn’t plugged in, turned on and actually computing? If so, I don’t see how anyone can keep arguing with her. That’s just stupid.
Laura, as the parent of a 26 week 2 day premature baby girl (born 13+ weeks early), I find your arguments against humanity disturbing.
A baby’s “viability” is nonsense….it’s based on medical and technological advances, not the human-ness of the “blob of tissue” (as some people call it). It has nothing to do with the reality of what that collection of cells is. It is merely a way for people to justify killing a human baby.
Sickening.
20 years ago, 10 years ago, Lily would have died (that’s my daughter, in case you didn’t guess). 15 weeks in the hospital, intubation to CPAP to nasal cannula, steroids prior to birth to help her lungs develop, surgery to open a blocked intestine at 3 weeks (that’s 29 weeks “gestation”), medicine for her PDA, antibiotics for her infections, laser surgery for her eyes, diuretics for her blood pressure, and a host of doctors and nurses (not to mention the prayers and support of friends and family, not to mention God’s grace) kept her alive.
How does the viability, which changes with our changes in technology, measure or limit the essence of being human? How is my daughter more human than a 26 week gestation baby born 50 years ago (one that would have immediately died)? Answer: She isn’t. They are both human.
The definition of when human life starts cannot be based on our current technological level. To do so is simply an attempt to justify the unjustifiable…the killing of an innocent human life, one at a very early stage of development, one in the place that should be the safest place in the world for it.
No, human life doesn’t begin at an arbitrary point based on current medical skills, or when we think the baby might feel pain, or some other random point that makes one feel justified in supporting one’s preconceived (HA!) stance. There are only two logical points to use…conception, or birth. Birth is a bit…late, since some babies are born at 40 weeks, some at 42, some at 38, some at 26 (as I can attest). Any other point is too muddled and indefinite for logical and practical application. Do you recommend nervous system scans of every fetus prior to abortion? Nervous system development varies in each unborn baby. Viability studies of each individual fetus? Some babies survive at 30 weeks when others die at 34 weeks, so it’s not like it’s the same for all babies. Or should it be set to some “early-enough” time when there’s no chance of nervous system development, or pain sensation/reaction, or any other trait you’d prefer?
None of those gestational times work…so you’re reduced to conception or birth. Take your pick.
By the way, the “personhood” argument is complete and utter garbage. The only purpose behind arguing that point is to (again) justify the unjustifiable: killing human “non-persons”. Even my 5-year-old understands how wrong that is. (Click my name, read the July 3 post.) So the argument becomes “it’s human, but not a person”. Sorry, your definition of “person” is too limited. A human entity, a human being, is a human person, regardless of how far along the developmental path he or she is. I’m still developing, changing. My intellect is changing as I learn new things. My rationality changes all the time (it’s especially poor when I’m extremely tired). The only difference between me and my daughter is developmental stage…I’m an adult, she’s a 9 month old. The only difference between me and my unborn child (due Nov 14,) is developmental stage…I’m an adult, he or she is a 24-week gestational age baby. But he or she is just as human, and just as much a person, as you or me.
“That’s how you see it. But someone else may see it as a measure of personhood.”
Then they would be wrong.
“Fetus and adult are two different types of being(s).”
That’s what you suppose. They are in reality two stages of the same type of being… namely a human person.
“But I haven’t made any such denial.”
Oh! Then you DO affirm that fetuses are human persons? Glad to hear it.
Mr. Siekierski- I hope you daughter is doing well!
Her very existence, I think, is the single most effective argument against “they’re not *really* people yet.” (Much like my buddy Jammie is a great argument against killing children of rape– she’ll kick your tail if you suggest her blood father makes her not human!)
Matthew, Lily will be in my prayers. I admire your calmness and patience in responding to the above vileness. We have to hope that Laura is incredibly misguided and not evil.
FWIW, technology has also made it easier for people to justify killing their babies. Take my #3: Mya. At 12 weeks they detected a cystic hygroma (we’ve just had a bundle of fun with the last two :-D), which could have been an indicator of Down’s, Turner’s, Trisomy-18, Trisomy-13, a heart defect, or absolutely nothing. The OB offered abortion (he knew we would reject, he doesn’t perform them, but he was required by law and/or malpractice reasons to do so), because of a possible defect that resolved by 20 weeks.
I’m getting to have a collection of stories. To be honest, I could live without them, but I’m sure God has a reason for all of this.
Lily is doing well, thanks for asking, Foxfier. She’s down to just 2 medicines, still has 20 bazillion doctors, and is 15+ lbs now (quite a change from the 1 lb 6.5 oz she started at). She rolled over (tummy to back) for the first time on Sunday. 😀 And, please, just call me “Matt” or “Matthew”. I’d hate for you to have to type my last name out all the time.
Thanks for the prayers, Bill. I’m positive we survived those weeks with her in the hospital because of the amazing number of prayers. As far as my calmness (thank for the compliment), I’ve had most of my reactiveness conditioned out of me through many years of online debate.
A nonviable fetus “winks out” with the winking out of the mother, i.e. cellular death spreads about.
Okay, first of all, cellular death is not “winking out” of existence, Laura. Cellular death is not an instantaneous disappearance from this universe, but is a process that takes time and is caused by other factors in this universe. In contrast, something that does not subsist in and of itself will, say, instantaneously vanish, leaving no trace it ever existed, the very moment it loses its connection with the substance on which its subsistence is based. For your argument to be valid, human fetuses would have to immediately die the moment their mothers died — there couldn’t be even a few moments’ delay.
A nonviable fetus will not exist apart from the uterus any more than your toe will exist apart from your foot. Both will rot after they’re severed.
So what? That does not make a nonviable fetus a mere part of the mother. “Exists apart” does not mean “exists outside of” or “able to exist outside of.” We’re talking about contingency or philosophical dependence of one thing upon another, not physical location. There are millions of micro-organisms living inside us and on our skin, that will die if they didn’t live inside us or on our skin, but that doesn’t mean they are mere parts of our bodies.
They are complete, meaning they have within themselves by nature all that they need to be a fetus.
Yes, all they need… to be a fetus! But the issue was what it takes to be a person, not a fetus.
One of the things it takes to be a person is to be complete, and you have agreed that they are complete. Therefore by your admission they have one of the necessary attributes of personhood.
A fetus is always a fetus. It doesn’t take anything for a fetus to be a fetus. So you aren’t saying anything.
On the contrary, to be a human fetus, among the things you need are human DNA, and you need to be a certain size and within a certain age-range, and you need to not be born yet.
They are substances, that is, they are things that exist.
Everything exists in some form or another, even if it’s just conceptual substance. So again, you haven’t said anything.
“Conceptual substance”?? Do you mean to assert that thoughts and ideas exist in the same manner as bodies and rocks and trees and atoms?
Anyway, it’s not saying nothing to acknowledge that a thing exists. The most basic of all categories are existence and non-existence. Human fetuses are substantial, not insubstantial.
Lastly, they are rational by nature, since they have the innate potentiality to develop rational cognitive faculties.
That means they’re potentially rational. That’s not the same as saying they are rational.
Yes, it’s not the same as saying they are rational, in the sense that their cognitive abilities are fully developed and functioning. But it IS saying they are rational, in the sense that they are a rational substance. A non-rational substance can never exercise reason, either actually or potentially. But human fetuses are rational by nature, which is why they can develop rudimentary cognition well before they are born. If they weren’t rational by nature, they’d be ape fetuses or monkey fetuses or who knows what sort of fetus, but they wouldn’t be human fetuses.
Your claim is to insist a caterpillar is a butterfly by nature. It’s not.
Yes, it is. A caterpillar is not a different species of insect, it’s just a young butterfly prior to metamorphosis. It’s not like it’s a cockroach transforming into a butterfly. It’s a baby butterfly achieving it’s proper, divinely-intended telos.
Similarly, a person who is brain damaged or mentally impaired in some way does not stop being a person just because his rational faculties cannot function.
It’s not just that “his rational faculties cannot function.” It’s that he doesn’t have rational faculties. Damage is destruction. When your computer fries, you no longer have a computer. A computer by definition computes. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer.
As others have already pointed out, a broken computer is still a computer. A broken human person is a still a human person. We aren’t just our brains — those are just important organs we use in concert with our bodies so that we can express our personalities and our personhood. But losing, or not yet having, the ability to express personhood does not equate to the absence of personhood.
When buying for computing purposes, I look to their potential for computing. When not computing, they can be paperweights, doorstops, decorative, etc.
Wrong, a computer is a computer no matter what you choose to use it for, just as a human fetus is a person even if we decide to kill him and use him for spare parts in Mengele-inspired laboratory research.
A zygote is not a fetus.
So, are you arguing that a zygote subsists in and of itself and apart from others, but a fetus, which is a more advanced stage of human development, does not?
The remark the poster made was that a fetus is POTENTIALLY rational. My comment was that if a fetus is potentially rational, that is not indicative that the fetus is rational. . . . If it’s your contention that both type fetus and type adult are rational, it was the poster’s contention that a fetus is POTENTIALLY rational.
No, I did not say that a human fetus is “potentially rational.” I said a human fetus is by nature rational, because it has the innate potential to develop rational cognitive faculties. A substance that is not by nature rational could never do that.
If what you call a refrigerator cannot function, then it is not a refrigerator, for it cannot do what a refrigerator can do.
So are you saying that if my refrigerator breaks down, I should call the plumber or the exterminator, but not the refrigerator repairman? After all, since it’s not a refrigerator, it would be kind of silly to call in the refrigerator repairman, wouldn’t it?
Well Laura, no offense intended, but I think this dialogue is a perfect demonstration of the fact that denial of the fetus’ personhood, and justification of legal abortion, are irreparably and irretrievably irrational.
But someone else may see it as a measure of personhood.
For my money, no one has ever improved on the classic definition of “person” that I’ve presented here. It’s the product of centuries of inquiry and fine-tuning. Every time we tinker with it or reject it, we get things like Auschwitz or the Killing Fields or legal abortion or forced sterilisation or euthanasia.
Perhaps neither very misguided nor very evil. “Laura” (aka B’Art/Q/Elmar/etc.) appears to be a garden variety troublemaker, a worker of trollery. It would be rash to conclude much of anything about his/her true motives and/or beliefs (if any) based on his/her posts (“It’s just a game”). I applaud Jordan and Tim J for rebutting his/her sophistry as exercises in form and reason (I’ve done some of that myself, and will in the future), but no one should make the mistake of supposing that in engaging “Laura” they are having a meaningful conversation with a serious fellow participant.
Joann said:
“I think we should be patient with Ms. Rice. She is a new Christian…”
Rice is as smart as many of us here put together, and giving her a free pass on Hillary is akin (no offense Jimmy) to saying she’s a new Christian, and a little idol worship is to be expected from a new convert…
She writes an unqualified heretical work, calls it “fiction” to get away with the Gnostic license she took in writing the POC, and now that she’s got every lib. softy in the bunch just looking for a reason to welcome her with open arms, and adopting her as a new Christian celebrity…it gets pretty hard to repudiate those positive, albiet premature accolades afforded her once her teeth start to show..
As someone posted earlier…look for the wolf in grandma’s clothing…ya thought the vampire writer’s “conversion” was too good to be true…well…Hillary?…might as well be a ringing endorsement for J.K. Rowling’s summer camp for wizards and witches…
Understood, SDG, but his/her/it’s posts, be they in jest or seriousness, shouldn’t go unanswered, lest others read them and assume them valid because of the lack of response.
your definition of “person” is too limited
I didn’t give a definition of “person”.
There are only two logical points to use…conception, or birth.
You call them logical. Someone else calls them arbitrary or lazy, much like picking the first or last house on the street.
Then they would be wrong.
Of course, the classic claim.
They are in reality two stages of the same type of being… namely a human person.
As long as your two stages have characteristic differences, then they are types too. Type and stage are not mutually exclusive.
Then you DO affirm that fetuses are human persons?
They are what they are. Affirmation doesn’t prove them to be whatever they’re affirmed to be.
cellular death is not “winking out” of existence
“Winking out” can mean whatever you want it to mean.
something that does not subsist in and of itself will, say, instantaneously vanish, leaving no trace it ever existed, the very moment it loses its connection with the substance on which its subsistence is based
The original claim was about a toe. A toe does not instaneously vanish, leaving no trace it ever existed, when it’s severed. That’s why it can be reconnected.
One of the things it takes to be a person is to be complete, and you have agreed that they are complete.
No, I simply echoed your say-nothing claim that a fetus is a fetus.
“Conceptual substance”?? Do you mean to assert that thoughts and ideas exist in the same manner as bodies and rocks and trees and atoms?
Some say they are, but that’s not what I was saying. Thoughts and ideas are things that exist. So are rocks and trees. I didn’t speak to the manner in which they exist and neither did your claim.
The most basic of all categories are existence and non-existence
If the category of non-existence exists, then it belongs in the category of existence.
A non-rational substance can never exercise reason, either actually or potentially.
Why can’t rationality be added later?
If they weren’t rational by nature, they’d be ape fetuses or monkey fetuses or who knows what sort of fetus, but they wouldn’t be human fetuses.
Some philosophers says various animals are in the rational category. You could put them all in the rational category and say some don’t develop their rational potential because it’s not been unlocked or unleashed for some reason or another.
A caterpillar is not a different species of insect, it’s just a young butterfly prior to metamorphosis.
No, prior to metamorphosis, it’s a caterpillar, not a butterfly.
a broken computer is still a computer.
No, you simply label it as one. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer. Just because you might want it to be a computer or because it used to be a computer doesn’t mean it’s a computer today.
But losing, or not yet having, the ability to express personhood does not equate to the absence of personhood.
When the water dries up, it’s no longer an oasis. It’s a desert.
a computer is a computer no matter what you choose to use it for
If I smash a TV set and fill it with dirt and flowers, it’s no longer a TV set but a planter. It might look in some ways to be a TV set, but it’s not.
are you arguing that a zygote subsists in and of itself and apart from others, but a fetus, which is a more advanced stage of human development, does not?
No, I said the ability to transplant a zygote is not proof that a fetus is not part of a woman’s body. You can transplant toes, warts, faces, lots of things. That doesn’t mean they’re not part of a woman’s body.
I said a human fetus is by nature rational, because it has the innate potential to develop rational cognitive faculties.
And someone else will say if it doesn’t have rational cognitive faculties, then it’s not rational. They will say you are not a doctor just because you have the “innate potential” to become one.
A substance that is not by nature rational could never do that.
And some will say a monkey is rational, just at a different level. And someone else will say you don’t have to have an innate potential to be rational if it can be added later. And some will say an innate potential for rationality does not mean someone is a person, e.g. one can have a potential but if it doesn’t develop or until it develops, then personhood doesn’t develop either.
So are you saying that if my refrigerator breaks down, I should call the plumber or the exterminator, but not the refrigerator repairman?
Your “refrigerator repairman” would be coming to work on your former refrigerator. Until he’s done his job, you don’t have a refrigerator. That’s why your food would be getting warm.
I didn’t give a definition of “person”.
You imply a definition of “person” by placing exclusions based on….something. Some chosen facet of life that allows you to be okay with the destruction of those human lives that don’t have that quality, which gets hidden by a term….”personhood”.
You call them logical. Someone else calls them arbitrary or lazy, much like picking the first or last house on the street.
Explain why the choice of “conception or birth” as limits is arbitrary or lazy. I’ve given my rationale for discounting any point inbetween…namely that the points inbetween shift as medical technology advances. My daughter isn’t a “person” because medical technology advanced to the point that she became “viable”, when she wouldn’t have been viable (and therefore, by your standards, a “person”) just a decade ago. In 50 years (who knows), the viability point will have shifted to even earlier in the pregnancy, and babies that today are deemed non-viable would in that time be viable. Somehow the standard for “personhood” shifts with medical technology?
It’s simply mental gymnastics to justify an indefensible position.
Oh, and I’m not interested in what “someone else” would call it. Truth is not relative. If my daughter at 26 weeks was viable (and she’s still alive at 9 months, so I’d say she was viable), then she was a person at 26 weeks (by your standard). Her physiology was no different from that of a 26-week gestational baby in 1973 (actually, she was developmentally behind by a couple of weeks), but somehow she gets “personhood” while the baby in 1973 is non-viable and therefore could be aborted?
In short, I’d like to see your justification for the idea that the standard for “personhood” should be based on medical/technological advances.
If anyone has any trouble seeing why this is a false analogy — why in fact Laura’s analogy actually reinforces Jordan’s point — raise your hand.
“Winking out” can mean whatever you want it to mean.
And so can any word. Do you really think this is even worth typing as a response to a serious argument? It’s this kind of thing that gets you a reputation as a closed-minded troll.
I didn’t give a definition of “person”.
More of the same. You’ve given a definition of “computer” and “refrigerator,” and if we weren’t supposed to understand those by way of analogy to a definition of “person,” then what was the point?
I recently complained that every dispute connected with James White rapidly devolves into a bottomless pit of postings and comments about whether and why (or why not) something White said was offensive. Laura, every dispute you enter seems to devolve into a dispute about whether you have actually said anything at all. Very frustrating.
Laura isn’t closed minded… or open minded. “Laura” takes no position on anything, apparently…
Life is easier that way.
She/He makes inferences and then scuttles away from the obvious conclusions – “I never said that…” Arguing with her is like chasing a vapor.
Like any gnostic, Laura won’t commit to any definite position on the personhood of the unborn (or anything else) because at bottom she/he doesn’t care.
Fetus and adult are two different types of being(s).
Laura,
It appears you have an inferior grasp of Science.
The human fetus and and human adult are considered of the same type: a human being.
Here, allow me to demonstrate:
When in the laboratory, we attempt to identify microbes, the very presence of endospores is already indicative of that microbe.
For example, just because it’s currently an endospore doesn’t mean it is no longer a bacillus.
That is, just because it’s an endospore at that moment, it isn’t automatically classified as being other than a bacillus.
It’s still a bacillus nonetheless.
I gather from all your comments thus far that you have little or no Science background whatsoever.
“Fetus and adult are two different types of being(s).”
Every autumn, someone – by dark of night, apparently – sneaks into my yard and tears out all the trees, replacing them with other trees with leaves of an entirely different color. Then in a few weeks, they replace all those trees with another variety that has no leaves at all.
What I want to know is, where are the original trees?
Similarly, last time I went hiking on the Buffalo River, I was disappointed to find that it had been replaced by another river – another type of river altogether – with much less water in it. I don’t know what they plan to call this new river…
Then you DO affirm that fetuses are human persons?
They are what they are. Affirmation doesn’t prove them to be whatever they’re affirmed to be.
A deliberate non-answer. We’ll take that as a “no.”
cellular death is not “winking out” of existence
“Winking out” can mean whatever you want it to mean.
No it can’t. This is probably news to you, but words actually mean things. We know what “winking” is, we know what “out” means. It’s pretty clear what “winking out” means. With your faulty reasoning and your refusal to use language correctly, it’s no wonder you don’t agree that human fetuses are persons.
the original claim was about a toe. A toe does not instantaneously vanish, leaving no trace it ever existed, when it’s severed. That’s why it can be reconnected.
But a toe is obviously a part of a human body, not something that subsists apart from the human body. A human fetus is obviously not a part of the mother’s body, but is a whole other organism growing within her body. Therefore he subsists apart from her body, which is why he has his own set of DNA, must be protected from the mother’s immune system so he won’t be killed by the immune system, and can be removed from her body and kept alive by other means (sometimes only temporarily). Also, when a pregnant woman dies, the fetus does not die at the same time, which is what should happen if he were a mere part of her body. Therefore a human fetus subsists in and of itself, apart from others.
To subsist in and of itself, a substance must be the true owner of its nature and attributes. But the nature of a human fetus does not pertain to the mother, so human fetuses exist in and of themselves.
One of the things it takes to be a person is to be complete, and you have agreed that they are complete.
No, I simply echoed your say-nothing claim that a fetus is a fetus.
As you well know, I didn’t say that a fetus is a fetus. I said that a fetus is complete because it has all of the qualities and attributes required to be what it is. You have not challenged that statement in anyway, but merely sneered at it as obvious or tautological. So I accept your concession that human fetuses are “complete.”
Philosophically, to be “complete” means to form a complete nature, not a partial one. A substance that is a mere part of something else is not “complete.” But fetuses possess all they need to have a fetus nature: no part of their nature properly belongs to any other substance (whether rational or non-rational). So fetuses meet the philosophical definition of “complete.”
“Conceptual substance”?? Do you mean to assert that thoughts and ideas exist in the same manner as bodies and rocks and trees and atoms?
Some say they are, but that’s not what I was saying. Thoughts and ideas are things that exist. So are rocks and trees. I didn’t speak to the manner in which they exist and neither did your claim.
Okay, since that isn’t what you were implying, then it’s probably best to retire the term “conceptual substance.”
The most basic of all categories are existence and non-existence
If the category of non-existence exists, then it belongs in the category of existence.
Ah yes, non-existence is a kind of existence, and ignorance is a kind of intellect. . . .
A non-rational substance can never exercise reason, either actually or potentially.
Why can’t rationality be added later?
Because it’s not in the nature of a non-rational substance to be rational, since that would mean it’s not a non-rational substance. For example, tarring and feathering me, gluing a beak on my face, putting claw-toed boots on me, and sewing wings to my back does not make me a bird. I am still a human, just dressed up as a bird. Nothing I or anyone else does will ever change my human nature to avian nature. In the same way, it is impossible to “add” rationality to a non-rational substance.
Some philosophers says various animals are in the rational category.
Some philosophers don’t know or care what “rational” means.
You could put them all in the rational category and say some don’t develop their rational potential because it’s not been unlocked or unleashed for some reason or another.
We know the potentiality of all animals, and not a single one of them has the potentiality of ever composing a poem or an original song, or writing a book, or building a computer. Even the cognitive abilities of the highest apes does not rise to the level of rationality — with training, they can attain the mental capacity of, say, a five-year-old child. Normally, human children do not attain proper rationality until about the age of 7.
A caterpillar is not a different species of insect, it’s just a young butterfly prior to metamorphosis.
No, prior to metamorphosis, it’s a caterpillar, not a butterfly.
No entomologist would agree that a caterpillar and a butterfly are two different species of insect. Therefore the caterpillar is the younger stage of the butterfly.
a broken computer is still a computer.
No, you simply label it as one. If it doesn’t compute, it’s not a computer. Just because you might want it to be a computer or because it used to be a computer doesn’t mean it’s a computer today.
No, a broken computer is really a broken computer. Saying differently or willing it to be something else does not make it stop being a computer.
You believe that people and things are defined by what they do or what you can do to them, but true philosophy defines people and things by what they are and what they aren’t.
But losing, or not yet having, the ability to express personhood does not equate to the absence of personhood.
When the water dries up, it’s no longer an oasis. It’s a desert.
That would be the equivalent of non-existence. But to be a person, you need to exist, that is, you need to be a substance. For our purposes, I am assuming that we’re talking about the nature of things that actually exist, not of things that have ceased to exist.
If I smash a TV set and fill it with dirt and flowers, it’s no longer a TV set but a planter. It might look in some ways to be a TV set, but it’s not.
It’s a planter that was made out of a TV set. But until you decided to destroy it, it was a TV set. But if the TV set needs repair, and if the human fetus needs medical treatment, that doesn’t make the TV set a planter, and it doesn’t make the human fetus a non-person.
No, I said the ability to transplant a zygote is not proof that a fetus is not part of a woman’s body. You can transplant toes, warts, faces, lots of things. That doesn’t mean they’re not part of a woman’s body.
True, that ability of itself does not prove that human organisms at the zygote stage are not mere organs of a woman’s body. But it is one of the things that proves it.
And someone else will say if it doesn’t have rational cognitive faculties, then it’s not rational. They will say you are not a doctor just because you have the “innate potential” to become one.
Laura, “doctor” is an occupation or profession of human persons, not a nature or a substance. A person is, at basis, an individual substance of a rational nature. What they learn to do for a living does not alter their essential nature. Humans are human by nature — they don’t just have the innate potential to become one, the way a person might be able to become a doctor, but they in fact are human from the first moment of their existence.
And some will say a monkey is rational, just at a different level. And someone else will say you don’t have to have an innate potential to be rational if it can be added later. And some will say an innate potential for rationality does not mean someone is a person, e.g. one can have a potential but if it doesn’t develop or until it develops, then personhood doesn’t develop either.
That’s all very nice, but not particularly helpful. “Some will say” all kinds of things. It doesn’t means it’s true, and it doesn’t mean they can demonstrate and establish that what they say is true.
But we can try out your alternate definition of personhood (please, no word games about not offering a definition of personhood, because you just gave us a partial definition). If personhood develops, then that means at times it’s there and at other times it’s not there. That means sometimes you enjoy the rights proper to the dignity of human nature, and sometimes you don’t. For instance, unborn babies and children younger than the age of reason are not persons, and therefore enjoy no human rights. The sick or disabled or the mentally retarded or those in comas or “persistent vegetative states” are also non-persons and may be disposed us.
We see where your proposal of developing, changeable personhood leads: it takes us to the death camps, the killing fields, the abortuaries, the world of euthanasia and infanticide. Therefore your proposed alternate definition of personhood is incorrect.
So are you saying that if my refrigerator breaks down, I should call the plumber or the exterminator, but not the refrigerator repairman?
Your “refrigerator repairman” would be coming to work on your former refrigerator. Until he’s done his job, you don’t have a refrigerator. That’s why your food would be getting warm.
Wrong again. I wouldn’t have a “working” refrigerator, but I would still have a refrigerator. It would only stop being a refrigerator if it were dissembled, destroyed, or otherwise turned into a different appliance or device or piece of modern “art.”
Matt S, congrats on Lily’s perserverence. I love stories of preemies, so small physically, so large in their will to live. And of course, God’s grace throughout.
I gather from all your comments thus far that you have little or no Science background whatsoever.
Esau, that’s the same conclusion I came to. The comment “fetus and adult are two different types of beings” is so flat out wrong that I won’t dignify it with discussion.
SGD I thought the rational argument was weak, and I’m definitely on the side of life. In fact I think that the argument of any potential function is also weak. If any definition of humanity requires rational faculties then we run in to the danger of justifying the evil of euthanasia of the mentally disabled. Humanity must be treated as intrinsic.
In fact a precise definition of what humans different from other organisms is unusually hard. I try a different tack, please tell me what you think.
Crucially we must always remember two things to reason through this properly: 1) our limited knowledge and 2) our propensity for error. In other words human beings do not fully comprehend our own condition and are thus prone to error.
Reasoning on this basis we see the consequences of our errors clearly. If a fetus in not truly human (I do not believe this, by the way) but we allow it to develop we have caused a women to carry against her will and possibly to suffer and we have also a been rewarded with a new person (unquestionably). I’d say the inconvenience is not small but not serious compared to the consequences of erring in the other direction. If a fetus is authentically human and we destroy it for our own convenience we are murderers. No serious moral person can accept murder. So no serious moral person who recognizes that murder is a possibility (given our uncertainty) can do anything other than err of the side of life. That’s part of my reasoning.
I gather from all your comments thus far that you have little or no Science background whatsoever.
Not to mention philosophical background . . . .
Arggh, forgot to include my name again . . .
Jordan, there’s this little checkbox to the right (at least, on my screen) that says “Remember personal info?” If you’re not using a public computer (i.e., library), check that box and you can save yourself some typing, and unattributed posts.
Of course humanity is intrinsic. Jordan isn’t saying otherwise. The point is that rationality is an innate human capacity that human nature is intrinsically ordered toward, and barring dysfunction or death will always produce (not entirely unlike how a refrigerator is teleologically ordered toward generating cold and will always produce cold unless it is damaged or unplugged or something, though I don’t wish to press the analogy too far).
From the first moment of its existence, a human zygote is an individual member of the human species, a human being, of the same kind or type (genus and species) as a child or an adult. It belongs to a species of rational animal, just as a caterpillar belongs to a species of flying insect. The zygote’s humanity is inherently ordered toward rationality, just as a caterpillar is ordered toward flying, is destined to fly unless something eats it or something else goes wrong. The caterpillar already has flying in its blood, in its genes, just as the zygote has rationality in its genes.
When we speak of “potential,” we must distinguish between mere capacity and true potential or potency. To give a partial example, a rubber band has the capacity to bundle together a bunch of pencils, if I take it and use it for such. But a rubber band stretched from one tip of a pencil over the other tip has what we call potential energy — energy that will actually be released kinetically if one end of the rubber band slips, or if the band snaps. It doesn’t just have the capacity for energy — the energy is already there, just in a potential form rather than a kinetic form.
In a not entirely dissimilar way, I have the capacity to be a doctor, if I happen to avail myself of the right education and work hard enough, but doctorhood is not, as it were, already inside me in potential form. It is something I would have to acquire from outside through the use of my rational nature.
By contrast, when we speak of the zygote’s potential for rationality, we aren’t talking about something the zygote can acquire from outside, but of of something that is characteristic of the human nature the zygote already has, though in a way that is not yet operational.
Incidentally, this doesn’t mean that if something does go wrong and the fetus develops in a way that will never allow it to achieve rationality, it is now less than human. It is still an individual member of the human species, and still a human being.
Wow, the person comparing Rowling to Rice’s statement to show how bad thems libs must be sure shows the depths of understanding and charity here…
Listen, what people who are saying to have some patience with Rice here are saying is that she’s very new to being a Catholic. Maybe you’re not familiar with what it’s like to convert, but I had a TON of misguided notions when I came over, some of which RCIA didn’t help with all that much, sadly. Others, I needed time to work out and come to a Catholic understanding of.
By all means, politely disagree with someone, but when you call them a “plant” in Catholicism (although I’m not even sure who apparently “plants” converts here), it is extremely disrespectful and uncharitable. Help people form their consciences correctly, don’t beat them over the head for being wrong.
You said it better than I could, SDG.
Jarnor23,
My comments are neither impolite, disrespectful nor uncharitable. Rice made a career of writing what can only be described as engrandising the demonic and evil…making fictional vampire characters for instance, poor misunderstood creatures that just want to be loved, etc. is exactly the kind of misdirection/desensitization satan hopes a writer like Rice can accomplish in presenting her writings to an innocent, confused public readership…(the “Hellboy” movie, Harry Potter, etc. as a few examples)
Satan also knows how sympathetic many of us can be toward a convert, and certainly must use that generosity to his advantage whenever he can. The real proof is in how Rice carries herself in her personal life, in her writings, and particularly in how she uses her new Christian celebrity to further or detract from God’s earthly plan for us…I don’t think there is anything wrong with surveiling celbrities who speak on our behalf, to ensure they actually stay on message…Jimmy’s made a career of that here…and if YOU look at the rest of the comments here, whether you or the rest appreciate my comments, the idea that a new Catholic convert would support such an open proponent of abortion, qualified or not, speaks volumes as to her “conversion,” and is not lost on this blogger crowd.
I have concerns about Rice, and I’ve stated them publicly, and with candor here…
Speak for yourself. Since I don’t reckon “celebrities” as speaking on my behalf, I don’t have a personal, ah, stake in Rice’s opinions one way or the other.
As for “on message,” that’s a PR spin term that implies a whole shared strategic discipline of presentation that has no bearing here. Rice is Catholic. I am Catholic. That’s all. We have a gospel message to proclaim, but no PR discipline by which either of us is in a position to judge the other “on message” or not.
Rice proclaims herself prolife, not in a trivial sense of “personally opposed but…,” but in a genuine sense of “Abortion is evil and we must find a way to end it.” After that it is a matter of prudential judgment. That’s enough to qualify her as a private citizen as “on message” with respect to the Church’s essential teaching.
I’m not saying I’d vote for her if she were running for office. But I’m not going to crucify her as a private citizen for being wrong on a question of prudential judgment.
it is impossible to “add” rationality to a non-rational substance.
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Of course, when I add water to the cake mix, what was dry is now wet.
We know the potentiality of all animals
Then you must know the future.
No entomologist would agree that a caterpillar and a butterfly are two different species of insect.
I didn’t say they’re different species. They are different types. Type is not the same as species. Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species. For example, short-haired dogs are of the short-haired type but they’re all the same species. There are also short-haired cats which are also of the short-haired type, but they are not the same species as short-haired dogs. Type is another word for variety, kind, form, sort, even when the members of different types share a common base nature. Type is also a synonym for nature, so things of different types can have different natures too. Things can be different types and the same type at the same time.
You believe that people and things are defined by what they do or what you can do to them
Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.
true philosophy defines people and things by what they are and what they aren’t.
People abound with their many different ideas as to what’s the “true philosophy”. Some would say the true philosophy is there is no true philosophy. And others would say all is true to the man who believes it to be true. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
That would be the equivalent of non-existence.
The desert exists. The oasis no longer does.
The oasis exists. The desert no longer does.
Some say fetus or human body vs person is similar.
True, that ability of itself does not prove that human organisms at the zygote stage are not mere organs of a woman’s body. But it is one of the things that proves it.
According to your theory.
[humans] in fact are human from the first moment of their existence.
And salad is salad from the first moment of its existence. But when does salad first exist? Is a head of lettuce a salad, or must I first shred it and put it in a bowl. Or is it not a salad until I add the tomatoes? Your “a human is a human” claim is another of say-nothing type.
“Some will say” all kinds of things. It doesn’t means it’s true, and it doesn’t mean they can demonstrate and establish that what they say is true.
Just as you have been unable to demonstrate and establish that what you say is true.
We see where your proposal of developing, changeable personhood leads: it takes us to the death camps, the killing fields, the abortuaries, the world of euthanasia and infanticide. Therefore your proposed alternate definition of personhood is incorrect.
In other words, it takes you to the world you live in, with its diversity of views, to include your own.
I wouldn’t have a “working” refrigerator, but I would still have a refrigerator.
If it doesn’t refrigerate, it’s not a refrigerator.
no serious moral person who recognizes that murder is a possibility (given our uncertainty) can do anything other than err of the side of life
In other words, no person who shares your view can do anything other than what you’d do. That just leaves everyone else who doesn’t share your brand of perspective.
I didn’t say they’re different species. They are different types. Type is not the same as species. Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species. For example, short-haired dogs are of the short-haired type but they’re all the same species.
Laura,
Please cease and desist —
Your poor attempt at a scientific explanation for the matter is not only seriously flawed but annoying.
Referring to your riscible example, a short-haired dog and a long-haired dog are, no matter how you would like to classify them, ‘dogs’ nonetheless.
(By the way, not only does this make no sense whatsoever but also it is not even analogous to the original comparison made earlier.)
And what’s with ‘type’ and ‘species’?
It actually goes something like this:
Species –> Genus –> Family –> Order –> Class –> Phylum/Division –> Kingdom
SDG,
Whether you understand it or not, when a Catholic celebrity makes a public statement about a political candidate, specifically to endorse said candidate, she does, or can be perceived to speak from, an approved Catholic perspective…much like a John Kerry or a Nancy Pelosi, or a Mel Gibson…
On “message” as I determined to use MY statement, means the gospel message…your attempt to semantically redefine my statement, and then argue against your newly inserted definition as though I had said it, speaks for itself…
You go on to say “Rice is Catholic.” You then quote her as saying, “Abortion is evil and we must find a way to end it.”
How could you possibly hope to reconcile these statements as truthful, when Rice indicates she will support a candidate who will certainly and DIRECTLY select and thereby outright effect the future of many, perhaps even a majority of, the Supreme Court members who will sit in the highest court of the land for the next several years…which I don’t need to tell you will result in the deaths of many more babies if Hillary gets in…
Rice’s celebrity endorsement of a pro-abortion candidate will certainly justify Clinton as a viable candidate and validate Clinton’s pro-choice stands in the minds of many devoted fans despite Rice calling herself Catholic and pro-life…
I like the old saying…”Don’t tell me, show me!”
My comments are no more judgmental than Jimmy discussing the crisis surrounding Bishop Melingo, and the Bishop’s words versus his actions…I simply ask…What does Rice tell us in her rhetoric vs. what does she show us in her endorsements…and how do they reconcile each other? And less directly, does she get a free pass on her public comments because she’s a self-reporting new Catholic convert?
Your poor attempt at a scientific explanation for the matter is not only seriously flawed but annoying.
Your poor attempt to classify it as a ‘scientific explanation is not only seriously flawed’ but amusing.
a short-haired dog and a long-haired dog are, no matter how you would like to classify them, ‘dogs’ nonetheless.
I already said that. Things can be different types and the same type at the same time.
And what’s with ‘type’ and ‘species’? It actually goes something like this: Species –> Genus –> Family –> Order –> Class –> Phylum/Division –> Kingdom
I didn’t bring ‘species’ into the conversation. My discussion was about type until some poster brought in his specious strawman.
when a Catholic celebrity makes a public statement about a political candidate, specifically to endorse said candidate, she does, or can be perceived to speak from, an approved Catholic perspectiv
You can perceive it any way you wish. It doesn’t mean your perception is any more than your wish.
Your poor attempt to classify it as a ‘scientific explanation is not only seriously flawed’ but amusing.
Laura,
Really now?
You were the one who brought up this whole affair.
I still haven’t heard a response to the ‘endospore’ example.
You were the one who brought up this whole affair.
I brought neither the word ‘type’ nor ‘species’ into the conversation.
I still haven’t heard a response to the ‘endospore’ example.
Check your hearing. I said, “Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.”
“Approved” by whom? I admit, I can’t rule out that there really are morons in the world who actually think that everything a prominent Catholic says has somehow been vetted and approved for public consumption by competent ecclesiastical authority (not that anyone that stupid would actually use that phrase). But you just can’t get your knickers in a twist about everything that absolutely anybody could possibly misconstrue.
The average marginally culturally-aware person who knows anything whatsoever about Gibson’s religion knows that he is some sort of reactionary or controversial Catholic whose views are not in line with the Church’s. Similarly, the average marginally culturally-aware person who knows anything whatsoever about Anne Rice knows Rice first and foremost as the author of vampire novels; if they are aware of Rice’s Catholicism at all, they probably have some grasp that Rice is a new convert, not a longtime Catholic soldier. The number of people who will assume that Anne Rice “speaks for Catholics” or that her every utterance is an “approved Catholic statement” is surely vanishingly small.
The GOSPEL message is that God sent Jesus to die for our sins. Period. I don’t see Anne Rice contradicting THAT, so…
As for what you intended, I can only go by your words; I’m not a mind reader. “On message” is a bit of jargon that has a certain cultural cache in public discourse; I took it in that sense. You say my doing so “speaks for itself”; what you do imagine it says?
As far as I can see, if you meant to use the term in a sense substantially different from the usual usage, it would seem that either you weren’t aware how the phrase is typically used, or else you were aware and expected readers to know what you meant anyway, or else you were aware of it and expected readers to misunderstand. I take the first possibility as the most likely, as well as the most charitable assumption. You also are welcome to whatever assumptions commend themselves to your judgment and charity.
Yes.
You don’t have to persuade me that Rice is wrong in her prudential judgment. I agree. All I’m saying is, she’s new, she’s trying, conversion is a process. She supports the Church’s teaching, but disagrees with you and me about the best way to fight abortion. She’s wrong, but I will not crucify her for that.
The prudential errors of a newly converted novelist who vocally supports Church teaching and has not defied any Church authority in any regard are not remotely worthy of being compared to the millstone around the neck of a willfully and openly defiant and rebellious Prince of the Church who has overtly spurned the best efforts of the highest authority to bring him back into the fold. I am frankly stunned by the comparison.
“I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. ”
Shortly after I returned to the Church, I came up against Her teaching against abortion. I held the exact same view as Rice states above, and could not get past it, no matter the argument. Then our Lord gave me the grace to ask Him to answer the question. I responded by taking Him up on His offer, and the matter was resolved.
Those who have posted suggesting that Rice’s conversion wasn’t real, sincere, complete, etc. should consider my witness prayerfully. I had simply been angry with G-d when I turned away; Rice waded ever deeper into esoterica, paganism and the occult. Would you have her speak Truth? Then pray for her ardently and with Charity.
it is impossible to “add” rationality to a non-rational substance.
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
We’re not talking about miracles, Laura, we’re talking about the nature of things. God can enable Balaam’s ass to speak, or raise up stone to preach the Gospel. But unless that happens, an ass will remain non-rational, and a stone will retain it’s non-speaking nature.
But with human fetuses, no miracle is needed for them to develop their rationality, because a human fetus has a rational nature.
Of course, when I add water to the cake mix, what was dry is now wet.
And when you add a human sperm cell to a human ovum, what was not a living human organism becomes a living human organism. From that moment, adding some quality external to the organism will not give it a rational nature, because it already has a rational nature.
We know the potentiality of all animals
Then you must know the future.
No, I — and all human beings who care to crack open an encyclopedia or a zoology textbook — know the natures of all animals, and we know that not a single one of them ever acquires functioning rationality, no matter how long they live or what they eat or where they live or what experiments we perform on them. It’s not in their nature, just as it is not in our nature to sprout wings and grow feathers. You don’t need the gift of prophecy to know that you will never become a bird, Laura.
No entomologist would agree that a caterpillar and a butterfly are two different species of insect.
I didn’t say they’re different species. They are different types.
But they would have to be different species in order for your argument (or what your argument amounts to) to be true that human fetuses are not persons in the same way that caterpillars are not butterflies.
Type is also a synonym for nature, so things of different types can have different natures too. Things can be different types and the same type at the same time.
Then “type” is a most unhelpful word for our purposes.
Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.
Again, that is not very helpful. People can say that my name is Llewellyn, but it doesn’t change the fact that my name is Jordan, not Llewellyn. If it is your contention that there is no such thing as truth, or that knowledge of the truth is impossible, then you should stop wasting your time here and go off and enjoy life in your solipsistic bubble. If that’s not what you’re contending, then stop saying stupid and unhelpful things like that.
People abound with their many different ideas as to what’s the “true philosophy”. Some would say the true philosophy is there is no true philosophy.
Some who do not know or have never learned how to think, that is. (Like you, for example.)
And others would say all is true to the man who believes it to be true. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
Nice prooftext. Care to try an experiment? I will firmly hold the conviction that I am not in fact replying to a message at Jimmy Akin’s weblog, but actually am at this moment flying through the air wearing blue tights and a red cape with a red and gold S on my chest. And you agree with me too. For all is true to the man who believes it to be true.
True, that ability of itself does not prove that human organisms at the zygote stage are not mere organs of a woman’s body. But it is one of the things that proves it.
According to your theory.
And according to anyone who knows anything about human biology and embryology, etc.
[humans] in fact are human from the first moment of their existence.
And salad is salad from the first moment of its existence. But when does salad first exist? Is a head of lettuce a salad, or must I first shred it and put it in a bowl.
It’s not salad until you shred it and put it in a bowl.
Or is it not a salad until I add the tomatoes?
Depends on what kind of salad you’re making. Salads don’t need tomatoes to have a salad nature, and humans don’t need to be able to express their innate rationality at all times in order for them to be an individual substance of a rational nature.
Your “a human is a human” claim is another of say-nothing type.
For someone who likes to say things like, “Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon,” I don’t think you’re in the very best position to tell what is and isn’t a claim of a say-nothing type.
Also, as you already know, I did not say “a human is a human.” I said humans are humans from the moment they come into existence, which is something else altogether. You, however, are open to the claim that we might start out as something non-human and then we become human later (since you insist that caterpillars are not young butterflies). So, no more of your strawmen, if you please.
“Some will say” all kinds of things. It doesn’t means it’s true, and it doesn’t mean they can demonstrate and establish that what they say is true.
Just as you have been unable to demonstrate and establish that what you say is true.
That’s one possibility, the other being that you are unable or unwilling to understand or accept my demonstrations. I rather favor that possibility, given your vapid claims that refrigerators and computers stop being refrigerators and computers when they break down or are unplugged. (It can be difficult to believe you really believe half if not more of the things you say, but I never underestimate the human capacity for folly and sheer stupidity.)
In other words, it takes you to the world you live in, with its diversity of views, to include your own.
“Diversity of views” is a very, um, interesting way to describe the killing of the innocent.
If it doesn’t refrigerate, it’s not a refrigerator.
Maybe, maybe not — it might just be an unplugged refrigerator, or a broken refrigerator. Again, a thing’s nature is not defined or ascertained solely or even primarily by its function or its utility. For example, human beings walk upright, but those in wheelchairs or who use walkers or canes are just as much human beings as those of us who can walk. But according to you, anyone who cannot walk, or cannot reason as an adult, etc., is not a human being.
Laura, you make some of the most glaring and fundamental errors of logic, so it’s small wonder you profess to be unconvinced by my demonstrations of the personhood of human fetuses. You haven’t even made it to Square One yet, let alone moved on from Square One.
Salad is an anthropological and artificial category, subject to fuzzy logic. Human nature is created by God and there is much less room for fuzziness.
Laura, have you ever heard of teleology?
Laura,
To your credit, I will say that you’ve made the attempt to think things out. Unfortunately, you’re not talking from a common frame of reference of the basic laws of nature. Or God’s laws.
Let me go through your last post:
it is impossible to “add” rationality to a non-rational substance.
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Of course, when I add water to the cake mix, what was dry is now wet.
The cake is a totally non-sequitur and has no relevance to anything mentioned here. The quote from Jesus is very much out of context. While God can indeed bypass the laws He made, He does not do so on a routine basis as you’re suggesting.
We know the potentiality of all animals
Then you must know the future.
A non-response. Going back to the earlier mention, whatever philosopher suggested that animals have the potential to be rational wasn’t Catholic. Animals have intelligence, but there’s a qualitative difference between humans and animals. (From this and several other comments, I’m guessing that you are not coming from a Catholic perspective.)
No entomologist would agree that a caterpillar and a butterfly are two different species of insect.
I didn’t say they’re different species. They are different types. Type is not the same as species.
The basic problem here is that your explanation of “type” does not mesh with existing accepted knowledge.
Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species. For example, short-haired dogs are of the short-haired type but they’re all the same species. There are also short-haired cats which are also of the short-haired type, but they are not the same species as short-haired dogs.
Where does your explanation of “type” fit in the hierarchy of differentiation that Esau spelled out?
Type is another word for variety, kind, form, sort, even when the members of different types share a common base nature. Type is also a synonym for nature, so things of different types can have different natures too. Things can be different types and the same type at the same time.
Sort of a catch-all for whatever you want it to mean. The problem is that it’s not objectively verifiable. Your use of “nature” is just as vague and not helpful as “type.” Not to mention contradicting established scientific laws and established philosophical thought.
You believe that people and things are defined by what they do or what you can do to them
Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.
Good ol’ relativism raises its head again. If you define a rose as a three quarter ton 18 wheeler, you’re no longer talking about a rose. Jordan is correct in pinpointing your method of definition as a source of your confusion. But that’s another post.
true philosophy defines people and things by what they are and what they aren’t.
People abound with their many different ideas as to what’s the “true philosophy”. Some would say the true philosophy is there is no true philosophy. And others would say all is true to the man who believes it to be true. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
Moral relativism again.
That would be the equivalent of non-existence.
The desert exists. The oasis no longer does.
The oasis exists. The desert no longer does.
Some say fetus or human body vs person is similar.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
True, that ability of itself does not prove that human organisms at the zygote stage are not mere organs of a woman’s body. But it is one of the things that proves it.
According to your theory.
A non-response with relativism as a decoy.
[humans] in fact are human from the first moment of their existence.
And salad is salad from the first moment of its existence. But when does salad first exist? Is a head of lettuce a salad, or must I first shred it and put it in a bowl. Or is it not a salad until I add the tomatoes? Your “a human is a human” claim is another of say-nothing type.
The lack of distinction between a human and a lettuce salad is mind boggling.
“Some will say” all kinds of things. It doesn’t means it’s true, and it doesn’t mean they can demonstrate and establish that what they say is true.
Just as you have been unable to demonstrate and establish that what you say is true.
Au contraire. The statements made by the others here have been demonstrated and established over the centuries.
We see where your proposal of developing, changeable personhood leads: it takes us to the death camps, the killing fields, the abortuaries, the world of euthanasia and infanticide. Therefore your proposed alternate definition of personhood is incorrect.
In other words, it takes you to the world you live in, with its diversity of views, to include your own.
More relativism. Plus unable to see a logical progression.
I wouldn’t have a “working” refrigerator, but I would still have a refrigerator.
If it doesn’t refrigerate, it’s not a refrigerator.
Jordan was correct that your definitions are based on utility. When I unplug my refrigerator, it’s still a refrigerator. You’ve demonstrated no understanding of something defined by their essence.
no serious moral person who recognizes that murder is a possibility (given our uncertainty) can do anything other than err of the side of life
In other words, no person who shares your view can do anything other than what you’d do. That just leaves everyone else who doesn’t share your brand of perspective.
You’re really steeped in relativism. Is it possible to consider beyond what you’ve learned, to consider that there is an objective truth?
I already said that. Things can be different types and the same type at the same time.
Please give an example of something being “a different type and the same type at the same time.”
(Thanks Esau, I meant to include that and didn’t.)
If you scroll down to the bottom of Anne Rice’s page (the link Jimmy gave), there is a link to book reviews she has posted on Amazon. They are all religion/theology related, and are quite telling about her Catholicism. For example, she gives a glowing review of a book by Hans Kung. I respect that she is a relatively new convert; I am impressed that she is pro-life in any sense of the term, given the other differences of opinion she appears to have with the Vatican; and I pray that she will continue on in her journey toward the truth. It seems to me she could use some prayers.
Laura,
Check your hearing.
My apologies, but since when have I heard you???
This is, after all, a blog which we read.
I said, “Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.”
Huh???
You said:
Fetus and adult are two different types of being(s).
Hence, I brought up something from my science background; that is, the ‘endospore’ example I had introduced earlier.
Check your reading.
Mary Kay,
Thanks once again for your kind comments. =^)
Salad is an anthropological and artificial category, subject to fuzzy logic.
Sure, there is the Caesar Salad, the Southwestern Salad, the Mexican Salad, the Greek Salad, the BBQ Ranch Salad, the Potato Salad, etc.
They are different types. Type is not the same as species. Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species.
For example, Southwestern Salad are of the Southwestern type but they’re all the same species.
My point w/r/t salad is that salad is what we call salad. What is human is human whether we acknowledge it or not.
Poor Laura lost the argument long ago and is now just flailing…
“Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.”
That’s rhetorical surrender. The last act of a desperate man/woman/child.
“Laura”, How do you function in life? Do you wear shorts and flip flops in the snow? Do you eat your furniture and sleep on piles of food? If not, why not? I mean, if you sleep on it, it’s no longer food, but “a bed”.
Your relativism is a tad selective, though, amounting to hitting the ejector button every time your logical and linguistic contortionism gets you in a tight corner. Arguing with you is like wrestling a Jello salad, which I would guess is your goal. You never really try to establish or defend any thing like truth, because you don’t believe there is such a thing. This also (conveniently) frees you from the ordinary constraints of evidence or argument.
You will, clearly, argue against any statement that presents truth as something real, knowable and static, no matter what the content. But your philosophy is self-refuting. If there is no truth, then your statements are as much gibberish as anyone’s, and may be very safely ignored.
I’m curious… Why bother to crank out all these statements claiming that all statements are equally false? Why not take up crossword puzzles? That would still allow you to arrange words in meaningless patterns.
Tim J.- Laura reminds me of a couple of Dungeons and Dragons characters my buddies made; they were chaotic. The soul purpose of their lives was to stir things up. Unfortunately, they weren’t very good at it, and ended up flailing, instead of doing a nice dance around.
I doubt Laura– or whatever they’ll call themselves next week– will ever get to the point of my husband and myself when we play at this; he could start at point A, and dance around to point Q without ever *exactly* contradicting himself.
The minute you start trying to redefine the whole thing in a swoop– IE, “it means what you interpret it to mean”– you lose.
I don’t think Laura is having much fun, either. Only to be expected, when one tries to play this game in a serious area– for it to be fun, both sides have to want to do the dance. If not, you get trounced.
“Things can be defined and redefined in any way under the sun or moon.”
This kind of relativistic statement makes argument pointless, which may be the intent. If we can’t agree on meaning we can not communicate at all.
But I always wonder if anyone who could write so many responses over several days really believes in relativism. I think it’s just a dodge or an adolescent way to stir things up. In other words not serious, but that’s obvious by now.
Dr Sanity has some enlightening discussions on relativism and denial on her blog for anyone who might be interested.
Laura, is a newly sprouted acorn an Oak? Or is it some weird proto-oak that only becomes an oak tree when the bark is fully formed and the girth of the trunk reaches a certain size and the leaves have formed and it is producing its own acorns (20-50 years after sprouting)?
Once the seed is germinated and begins to grow (in the proper location and under the right conditions), it is no longer “just” an acorn, it’s a living, growing oak tree.
So, too, with the human egg. Once fertilized, and since it starts off in the proper location under the right conditions, it is no longer just an egg, it’s a living, growing human. It’s immaturity doesn’t remove it’s humanness. And the whole “personhood” argument was concocted by those trying to justify killing an innocent human. It has no other reason to be an issue.
Hi Matt,
I think we are all, in effect, arguing with an empty chair. What’s the point of reasoning with someone who refuses to reason.
That said I like your point.
If a fetus is a “proto-person”, then killing it is a “proto-murder”. It does not follow that a “proto-murder” is morally sanctionable even if we accept the absurd nonperson status of given a fetus. What I mean is that is this concocted personhood argument is not enough to justify killing a unborn child by itself. The abortion advocate must say this fetus in it’s vague status is entirely unimportant so that a Mother can “dispose” of it at will.
To expand on this a bit, if you argue that a fetus is not 100% human. It does not follow that a fetus is worth nothing.
SDG,
My point w/r/t salad is that salad is what we call salad. What is human is human whether we acknowledge it or not.
Uhhhh… I don’t know if you ever realized it or not, but I was simply mimicking Laura’s comments about ‘short-haired dogs’ being of the short-haired type, etc.,; that is, her species/specious argument.
Here’s hers:
They are different types. Type is not the same as species. Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species. For example, short-haired dogs are of the short-haired type but they’re all the same species.
And, thus, when you said:
Salad is an anthropological and artificial category, subject to fuzzy logic.
I said in turn:
Sure, there is the Caesar Salad, the Southwestern Salad, the Mexican Salad, the Greek Salad, the BBQ Ranch Salad, the Potato Salad, etc.
They are different types. Type is not the same as species. Different species can be different types, but different types do not have to be different species.
For example, Southwestern Salad are of the Southwestern type but they’re all the same species.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 22, 2007 4:10:13 PM
Now you see???
Brother, that reminds me of a Conan O’Brien bit where he’s trying to explain a joke that went badly wrong.
That actually sounds really funny.
“Actually, that’s a common misconception… clownfish are no funnier than any other fish.”
“Well I actually do know one joke that’s pretty good. There was this mollusk…”
You guys are funnier than any clownfish 🙂
What are you guys talking about? A “joke” can be anything you want it to be.
If that’s your opinion, francis, then that’s your opinion, but other people might disagree.
Especially if they have two heads.
“If that’s your opinion, francis, then that’s your opinion…”
Francis only *perceives* that to be his opinion.
What if the two heads have different perceptions? (Isn’t there a Sesame Street character like that?)
BTW, Tim and SDG, as much as I enjoyed your posts back when you were co-bloggers, I think your comments are even more valuable.
Laura, is a newly sprouted acorn an Oak?… Once the seed is germinated and begins to grow (in the proper location and under the right conditions), it is no longer “just” an acorn, it’s a living, growing oak tree.
You differentiate a sprout from “‘just’ an acorn”, saying the former is a tree but the latter is not. But your “‘just’ an acorn” is an embryo. And when it reaches the ground and sprouts, it exists apart from and no longer biologically dependent upon the original mother tree like an infant no longer in its mother’s womb.
Your analogy thus devalues the embryo and places value on the viable fetus/infant.
Your analogy is in keeping with the general view that acorns are not trees, and thus the loss of an acorn (i.e. embryo) is not the same as the loss of a tree (i.e. person).
Wrong wrong wrong.
The analogy is admittedly imperfect, but still and all an acorn yet on the oak tree is not actively in the process of growing into a full-grown oak tree, as an embryo in the womb is actively in the process of growing into a fetus/baby/child.
If we are to find any analogy in human reproduction for an acorn still on the oak tree, it would be an unfertilized egg in a woman’s ovaries.
Conversely, if we are to find any analogy in oak reproduction for the fetus growing unseen in the womb of its mother, the closest correspondence (as close as the analogy will allow) would be acorn growing unseen in the womb of mother earth.
The disanalogy is rooted (har!) in part in the different reproductive strategies of humans and trees, most especially and obviously the fact that an embryo grows in the womb of its mother, while an acorn grows in the womb of mother earth.
However, a growing acorn in the womb of mother earth is already an individual specimen of the same species as the grown oak, just as a growing embryo in the womb of his or her mother is already an individual member of the human race.
an embryo grows in the womb of its mother, while an acorn grows in the womb of mother earth.
An acorn results from fertilization and development into and as an embryo while part of/connected to the mother tree, not in the earth.
Someone (using the name Hillary Clinton) wrote:
“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
To me, the term “pro-choice” is a rather silly one. No one is in favor of laws preventing women from making choices in general. And, no one is in favor of making all choices legal — I don’t know anyone who is pro-choice when it comes to committing gang violence, for example. The question is whether a particular act should be allowed — the act of abortion — not whether people should generally be allowed to make choices. So-called “pro-choice” people are in favor of allowing abortions to happen — it’s not that they are more in favor of choice than others are. They want to live in a society that freely allows abortions and thus they are accurately described as “pro-abortion.”
So-called “pro-choice” people are in favor of allowing abortions to happen
Pro-choice people include people who actively work so that abortions do not happen.
The acorn will not grow into an oak tree until it germinates…that is, it begins to grow after a period of dormancy. The fertilized human egg experiences no such dormant time, unless you want to count the time between fertilization and cleavage (the first cellular division). That’s within the first 24 hours.
In other words, the acorn is not the analog of the embryo, the sprout is.
To continue SDG’s extension of the analogy, human birth is similar to the sprout shoots that finally break the surface of the earth, it’s womb. Prior to that surfacing, the growth is still that of an oak, contained within the womb of the earth, but a growing oak nonetheless.
But it is just an analogy. It’s not a perfect representation of the human reproductive process, by any stretch of the imagination. My primary reason for using the analogy is that, once growth starts, it’s easy to point to even the shoot of a recently germinated acorn and say “it’s an oak”, even though it doesn’t have bark, or full leaves, or acorns of its own yet. Just like it should be easy to look at a baby in the womb and say “it’s a human”. The humanness is an intrinsic part of the baby, just like the oakiness is an intrinsic part of the acorn shoot.
BTW, Tim and SDG, as much as I enjoyed your posts back when you were co-bloggers, I think your comments are even more valuable.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 23, 2007 2:03:51 PM
What a wonderfully tactful way of saying that Tim J. & SDG actually suck as Co-bloggers and that they’d better stick to just posting their personal comments in the comment box! ;^p
Laura wrote:
Pro-choice people include people who actively work so that abortions do not happen.
Well, then, you’ve had your try and it’s failed miserably. There are more than 1 million abortions per year. Time to let pro-lifers try it their way again.
It turns out that the Acorn Analogy is dealt with, at considerable length and far better than I could, HERE.
See the rest of the essay for the development of this thesis.
Nuff said.
It turns out that the Acorn Analogy is dealt with, at considerable length and far better than I could, HERE.
Nuff said.
No — it’s not enough!
Do you consider a piece of lettuce ‘Salad’?
How about a tomato?!
“You can’t handle the Truth!!!”
Admit it, SDG!!!
Oh yeah, Tell Laura I love her!
NOT!
I have to admit I can’t say that I love Laura. I would try to love the person posting under that name, if s/he would allow him/herself to be known in a meaningful degree. As it is, “I cannot love a lie. I cannot love a thing that is not.”
Wow, I’m provoking a lot of mirthful (I hope) asides today. But seriously, there was a point where I was extremely exasperated with the commenters around here. Tim and SDG are a real breath of fresh air.
The fertilized human egg experiences no such dormant time
There are fertilized human eggs being held in dormancy for years.
it begins to grow after a period of dormancy
And before. It’s fertilized and undergoes growth as embryonic development prior to dormancy.
It turns out that the Acorn Analogy is dealt with
It attempts to deal with it, but as always, it’s still just another blast of wind.
it’s easy to point … and say “it’s an oak”, even though it doesn’t have bark, or full leaves, or acorns of its own yet.
Yes, it’s easy to point and say most anything. I have “an oak” chair but it’s not a tree. You can also point to an acorn and say it’s “an oak acorn” but as you’ve already admitted, it’s not a tree.
The humanness is an intrinsic part of the baby, just like the oakiness is an intrinsic part of the acorn shoot.
You already admitted an acorn (embryo) is not a tree (person). Falling back on the species/DNA argument isn’t going to save you from that.
There are more than 1 million abortions per year. Time to let pro-lifers try it their way again.
Pro-choice is not exclusive of pro-life and pro-lifers are not new. If they need to “try it their way again,” one might wonder what they’ve been doing wrong.
I would try to love the person posting under that name, if s/he would allow him/herself to be known in a meaningful degree.
You are the only one stopping you from that.
This the the only falsehood in your post that is really important and worth addressing.
For persons to know one another, there must be a mutual act of shared self-disclosure. C.S. Lewis talks somewhere about “knowing” various sorts of subjects, from a rock (where the initiative is all on your side) to a puppy (still mostly yours, although the puppy has some initiative) through to God, where the initiative is first of all on His side. In the case of another person, it is fully mutual; each party must be willing to be know and be known.
I can only know you to the extent that you are willing to be known. You can say if you like that you aren’t preventing me from knowing you if you want, but that’s just another blast of wind… just another game.
If you wanted to be known here in this forum, you wouldn’t have used a dozen different aliases at the top of this thread. I know you’re using one now, but the aliases was just one tool in your arsenal of self-concealment. Deprived of that one, you have others. Your fundamental choice not to reveal yourself has not changed.
You are more important than your games, but no one can stop you from playing them as long as it pleases you.
You already admitted an acorn (embryo) is not a tree (person).
One wonder what you got on your verbal SAT, with this grasp of analogies.
An acorn is to an embryo what a tree is to an adult.
If you wanted to be known here in this forum, you wouldn’t have used a dozen different aliases at the top of this thread
They’re all names from which you are welcome to choose how you wish to designate me. A name is nothing more than something by which YOU may designate me. I have no need for any name.
Your fundamental choice not to reveal yourself has not changed.
You’re welcome to believe whatever you want. That is your own game.
An acorn is to an embryo what a tree is to an adult.
You are losing points on your SAT. To quote the poster: “Once the seed is germinated and begins to grow (in the proper location and under the right conditions), it is no longer “just” an acorn, it’s a living, growing oak tree.”
He didn’t say the seed which has just been germinated is an adult, as it clearly isn’t.
“Laura” sounds like our gnostic person from a while back. I’m curious as to why “Laura” keeps coming back.
I’m curious as to why “Laura” keeps coming back.
Let curiousity be the death of you.
Let curiousity be the death of you
Yeowch. Not exactly your friendly side, is it?
The very fact that you continue to come back says something. It’s not to engage in mutual discussion, at least not at this point. So I’ll continue to correct for any lurkers until you decide to play like everyone else.
Laura,
Yes, it’s easy to point and say most anything. I have “an oak” chair but it’s not a tree. You can also point to an acorn and say it’s “an oak acorn” but as you’ve already admitted, it’s not a tree.
Ok, your chair is a dead part of an oak tree, you’d agree with that? If you buried your chair in the ground it would not grow up to be an oak tree, a sofa or anything else. A human embryo is not dead, it’s alive, it’s not part of the mother. By any biological definition of life, it’s a distinct entity, and the only thing it could be is human.
You were not ever a sperm, that is a part of your father, you were not ever an egg, that is part of your mother. Sometime between the moment the sperm met the egg until this moment you became you. Obviously there is a defining moment… what then is it? When you were full grown (assumption on my part)? When you reached puberty (another assumption)? Infancy? When you were out of your mother’s womb and the cord was cut? What about before the cord was cut? What changed about you from the 1 minute before you were in the womb and the 1 minute after you were out? Anything? Just your location. So changing locations defines a person??? What if we surgically replaced a newborn back in her mother’s womb before the cord is cut, does she stop being a person???? That’s completely illogical…you must have been you while you were in the womb, ok at what point did you be come you? One day prior? One month? 3 months? There is no objectively defining moments along the way, just cells dividing and forming organs in a continuous process with nothing being added but nutrients and oxygen. The last defining moment of your being a human is the same as the first, because before that you didn’t exist, and after that you did… it was the moment of conception. None of this line of reason has to do with religion, or morality, it’s pure reason and biology.
So now, you have to decide, do you accept that some innocent human persons can be killed because they are inconvenient based on someone’s choice? or do you hold with us that innocent life should be protected?
God Bless,
Matt
For some it’s like plucking an acorn and for others It’s like cutting down a tree. Some people think nothing of it, some think it’s ok if it’s an inconvenience, some think it needs to be more than inconvenience, some think it should not be cut down unless it threatens the life of someone, etc. Some want laws against it, others don’t. It’s a value judgment. People with different values, different understandings will arrive at different answers.
Wrong again. That is what you choose to believe, or to pretend to believe, is my game. I’m not playing a game just because you say I am.
I know social behavior when I see it. Also antisocial. This that you do here is not social behavior, not the self-disclosure of a self willing to know and be known, at least in this forum.
“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
Well, Hillary, you are ignoring the giant elephant in the room. It isn’t all that complex. If abortion is actually killing, there is no way for a Christian to be pro-choice or pro-abortion. If it isn’t actually killing then you don’t need the “pro-choice” disguise. “Pro-abortion” would do just fine.
If you can accept that anyone in a civilized country can kill a baby in the womb, you are de facto pro-abortion, particularly if you are in a government leadership position, even if you personally find the idea repugnant.
We don’t have this discussion about any other kind of killing of a human being. We don’t disguise it behind bad law or false liberty. Either it is killing or it isn’t. If it is, then it has got to stop in a civilized nation.
The gray area you think you see is just hardened feminists blowing smoke.
Matt, nice post. Very likely, a lurker will find it helpful. But you can see that Laura has given you the same relativism brush-off that she’s given everyone else.
Laura has shown herself impervious to logic. That makes me wonder yet again, why she comes back.
Laura, is this a game of words to you? Are you simply looking for attention, even negative attention? If this is seriously your opinion on abortion, then you remind me of young adults who haven’t thought it through.
Perhaps to your disappointment, curiousity won’t be the death of me. Interesting that was your response to a neutral question. You might want to ponder SDG’s observation:
I know social behavior when I see it. Also antisocial. This that you do here is not social behavior, not the self-disclosure of a self willing to know and be known, at least in this forum.
People here are willing to engage in discussion with you, genuine discussion that is. If that’s what you’re interested in, you might want to let yourself be known on a topic a little less charged than abortion.
Laura,
For the record I think your actually right about the acorn analogy. It’s hopelessly flawed. An acorn is fertilized embryo unlike a human embryo is already separate from the parent and is perfectly viable although quiescent as Matthew points out. Very unlike a fetus which is not separable so quickly after fertilization and is never dormant. It’s a poor example also because morally crushing an acorn or cutting down a tree is no big deal either way (as long as it’s your tree).
However It actually points out the artificial distinctions we make between acorn tree, fetus and child. Life is an unbroken continuum. Zygote, fetus, child, boy man are not newly made things but stages of development. They are like acts in a play or chapters in a book. All of these stages are part of one unified human story. In our own minds, we can lump chapters together or split them or edit them out (pretending they don’t exist) but they are still there and are still real no matter what label we affix.
Sorry for all the typos!
“Pro-choice people include people who actively work so that abortions do not happen.”
And people who actively work so that they do.
“People with different values, different understandings will arrive at different answers.”
Yes. My dog chews on DVDs and pees on the laundry.
My bet is that “Laura” is really Justice Kennedy:
See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852 (1992).
Someone (using the name Hillary Clinton) wrote:
“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
As for myself I am a pro-choice Catholic. I support the choice of everyone to throw rotten fruit at politicians, or not. Please note I recognise that the act of throwing rotten fruit at someone is immoral but, nonetheless, I must support other peoples right to choose to throw rotten fruit and I will not impose my morals on them.
How do I uphold this contridiction. Easy, as a Catholic and a fruit seller I find that I should not impose my religious beliefs that rotten fruit throwing is immoral.
BTW: SALE at fruitthrowers.com on all kinds of stinky rotten fruit and vegetables.
“SALE at fruitthrowers.com on all kinds of stinky rotten fruit and vegetables.”
Heh.
MK,
actually, I think we made progress. She did not refute my line of reason, and so she doesn’t deny that it’s a human being that is killed, she just thinks people should have that “choice”, and so we are at the end of our dialogue, we understand each other’s position. I suspect if I saw her being murdered she’d want me to intervene, but that would be my “choice”, and I’m sure she would be consistent in her viewpoint that I am under no obligation to prevent it, or even refrain from assisting.
God Bless,
Matt
I have to admit I can’t say that I love Laura.
Actually, Tell Laura I Love Her is an old song. =^)
There are fertilized human eggs being held in dormancy for years.
Artificially. I wanted to see if you’d go there, and you did.
Barring outside interference, the human reproductive cycle doesn’t include a dormant period, unlike an acorn. Without germination, the acorn will not produce an oak tree. Human reproduction doesn’t include that step. Acorns require both fertilization and germination, while human eggs only require fertilization.
In other words, cryogenic freezing of fertilized eggs (embryos, actually) is not a normal part of the course of development for a human being, while dormancy for an acorn is. An acorn needs to be “activated” (germination) through the proper conditions (sufficient but not excessive water, proper temperature ranges, etc.)
And before. It’s fertilized and undergoes growth as embryonic development prior to dormancy.
Not being a botanist, I would have to verify this information. Forgive me if I find myself in a position where I can’t trust your word. But from what I recall, the acorn develops as a result of fertilization, but remains inactive until germination. Again, the two-step process that humans don’t have.
Yes, it’s easy to point and say most anything. I have “an oak” chair but it’s not a tree. You can also point to an acorn and say it’s “an oak acorn” but as you’ve already admitted, it’s not a tree.
Nice bit of judicious editing there. I said “acorn shoot”, not “acorn”. The acorn is an oak seed, the shoot is the new growing tree.
You already admitted an acorn (embryo) is not a tree (person). Falling back on the species/DNA argument isn’t going to save you from that.
I did no such thing. Your edit makes it appear that way. The acorn shoot is the analog of the embryo (I believe I already said that.). The acorn (even though fertilized) requires the additional step of germination in order to grow. That extra step has no human equivalent to germination, so the best fit is that human fertilization and “germination” happen simultaneously (it’s not a perfect analogy).
I’ll say it again so it’s clear: The acorn is not the equivalent of the embryo. The shoot is, and it doesn’t matter if the shoot is still underground, it is still an oak tree.
Well, I’m done with this, unless you’ll actually deal with what was said instead of misquoting in order to put words in my mouth.
Actually, you know what? Just forget it. You have no desire to discuss, you just want to stir the pot. I’ll just redefine “personhood” to not include people who believe in relativism. Yay! I don’t have to treat you like a person.
Heh…that mean’s I’m not a person either 😉
Well, aside from the amusing refrain of “You can perceive it any way you wish” and the like, there is another benefit from having “Laura” around.
A good friend of mine used to stay up until 2 AM or later with me regularly having debates about theological matters. He is one of those Catholics, so I figured I had to show him how silly his stance was, and how much more sensible being a Lutheran was.
Brush with the truth long enough and some of it is likely to rub off on you. *grin* I can’t be grateful enough, especially given that the ELCA apparently now has no problem with actively gay ministers. I guess that Bible thing was optional. Sola Scriptura my butt.
It’s a value judgment. People with different values, different understandings will arrive at different answers.
Yeah, but that doesn’t make it right.
People arrive at different answers; but are we supposed to allow all those answers — including the wrong ones???
For example, some folks don’t think murdering people who cross them is wrong.
Are you telling me that since those folks don’t actually consider that a wrong, that it’s acceptable for them to commit such murder?
FYI Matt
I have a BS in Botany from Univ of Michigan and my grad degrees are in Forestry (MS) and Plant Physiology (PhD) from Texas A & M (hence “Aggie”). I don’t know my theology as well as many on this site but I do know plant biology. An acorn is a fertilized embryo.
Esau
You have a fundamental world view difference. People who speak of value judgments don’t believe in right and wrong. The values language is a mark of moral relativism. Values rise and fall but right and wrong are immutable. It’s a intellectual cop out in my opinion.
Pardon, but..
Who is Ann Rice?
Shall we (whatever our Creed) now weigh our civil consciences against what some contemporary scribe says? Wouldn’t that only reduce us to being a subset of worldly politicians, too?
Who is Ann Rice?
Someone who has a right to her -wrong- opinion.
and BTW a webpage with LOTS of visitors thus her opinion needs answering for that reason alone.
Memphis Aggie,
Thanks for the info!
I just can’t seem to accept this view of folks since within this relativistic mindset, even the vile acts of the most notorious, Hitler, is found to be acceptable given that what is right is entirely up to the individual; that there is no such objective right or wrong!
Incredible!
If that’s the case, we shouldn’t even have a criminal justice system since all those criminals are simply doing what they believe is right in their eyes!
Why persecute them for doing something they believe is right??? Even if it means killing/raping people and what not???
I for one don’t believe that most people really believe in relativism , but rather that it’s just a way to be especially slippery in conversation.
I think that “Laura’s” coming back here is a (perhaps unconscious) plea for prayer. We should oblige her.
You’re a charitable man Bill and you’re probably right too.
Oh, but Martin.. Ann Rice informs my Catholic life as an American as much as Condi Rice does (which would not quite yet fill a freckle). However, to read/be instructed/challenged by a true Authority is a whole different kettle of fish.
Memphis Aggie, thanks for the clarification as to what an acorn is.
Now, can you help me with this: is there a mammalian equivalent to the dormancy that is normally experienced by an acorn? Or a mammalian equivalent to germination? Please exclude artificially induced dormancy.
Inside an ungerminated acorn is an embryonic oak tree waiting to grow, held in stasis by the nature God gave it. Inside the mother is an embryonic human that already IS growing.
Hi Matt,
As far as I’m aware there is no such dormancy in mammals. Even fertilized vertebrate eggs (like chicken eggs or frog eggs) do not remain dormant – they develop continually. Dormancy of this kind is only seen in plant seeds and it can last for thousands of years. Wheat seeds from Egyptian mummies tombs have been successfully germinated thousands of years later.
Another small point. The common seed is an incredibly complex life form that can sustain extended drought and heat, fully reconstituting a plant with just a little water. It’s abilities surpass the greatest of man’s works ( no matter how cool you think the iPod is). How much more so is the human fetus?
People arrive at different answers; but are we supposed to allow all those answers — including the wrong ones???
Is what you do decided by supposition? Is supposition your reality?
For example, some folks don’t think murdering people who cross them is wrong. Are you telling me that since those folks don’t actually consider that a wrong, that it’s acceptable for them to commit such murder?
But it was acceptable for them, as evidenced by the fact they did it. And it was acceptable for someone else to try to stop them, as evidence by the presence of religions, police, prisons, etc.
Inside an ungerminated acorn is an embryonic oak tree waiting to grow, held in stasis by the nature God gave it.
And someone else will say the actions of man in holding fertilized eggs in stasis is also part of ‘nature’.
Life is an unbroken continuum. Zygote, fetus, child, boy man are not newly made things but stages of development. They are like acts in a play or chapters in a book. All of these stages are part of one unified human story.
Whose story is it that it’s a story? If it’s your story, tell it as you please. If you’re but a character in the story, then you and the others are simply playing out your roles as told by the one telling the story.
In our own minds, we can lump chapters together or split them or edit them out (pretending they don’t exist) but they are still there and are still real no matter what label we affix.
What exists apart from your mind thinking it does? Does your shoe exist when your mind is not? Do you exist when your mind is not? Some will say yes to the former and no to the latter. Some will say no to the former and yes to the latter. Some will say yes to both. Some will say no to both. Some will say they cannot know. Who decides what you will say?
An acorn is fertilized embryo unlike a human embryo is already separate from the parent and is perfectly viable although quiescent as Matthew points out.
Unless an acorn begins its existence separate from the parent, it is not “already” separate from the parent. And then there’s, “life is an unbroken continuum.” Where then is the separation of life between mother and child, or betwen you and an acorn or oak tree?
The common seed is an incredibly complex life form that can sustain extended drought and heat, fully reconstituting a plant with just a little water. It’s abilities surpass the greatest of man’s works
The abilities of a seed are part of your story.
Laura,
“What exists from your mind thinking it does?”
Do you believe this? I doubt you do. After all why argue with me if I just a phantasm?
What exists apart from your mind thinking it does?
Laura, what are your answers to the following questions:
Does Objective Truth exist when one is not aware of it or thinks of it?
Does the existence of Objective Truth depend on one’s awareness of it or thinking about it?
Does Objective Truth exist some say it exists and others say not?
I would be very, very curious regarding an honest and insightful answer to the question “Why is Laura here?”
As nothing Laura is particularly likely to say is particularly likely to come within a million miles of an honest and insightful answer to that question, I see no point in actually posing it, nor can I work up much interest in whatever Laura might, not say in response to the question, but at any rate take the occasion of the question to say.
Your probably right SDG. I for one, wonder if Laura is an adult. I find the whole thread to be adolescent in tone. In my mind (yes I recognize the irony) be young would be mitigating.
These are only guesses, I’m no profiler, but I see “Laura” as a smart, educated adult, and FWIW I think “she”‘s a man. Very smart. Probably religious upbringing, or at least went through a significant religious phase, but has to one extent or another fallen away. I have other guesses, but I’d rather avoid appearances of Bulverism.
I don’t pretend to have any insight into “her” motives or what brings “her” here. What I am confident about is that on some level or other it’s just a game. Laura isn’t here to discuss or argue ideas, just to poke people. I lack utterly the imagination even to guess at why.
Laura, why are you arguing with yourself? I only exist if you choose to believe in my reality.
What’s Bulverism?
Never mind I googled it – very appropriate
If we take Laura at her word that she thinks each person can define his or her own reality, then who’s to say she doesn’t just arbitrarily enjoy posting those views here?
And yes, Laura, I realize you didn’t actually say that. But all the other commenters on this site have formed a collective belief that that’s what you think. So let us tell our story that way, okay?
I would be very, very curious regarding an honest and insightful answer to the question “Why is Laura here?”
Who says Laura is here?
If we take Laura at her word that she thinks each person can define his or her own reality
Who says I think that?
Ya’ll spend too much time talking to trolls here.
Why do you ask?
I know, I know, who says you did?
Can we just declare you the winner and be done? Your Jell-O act beats our collective efforts to nail you to the wall. We can’t, we really can’t make you actually say anything, if you don’t want to.
You proved it. Congratulations. Have a nice weekend. Try to find something meaningful to do on Sunday morning.
Smokey: Yes, you are right. We are, variously, too stubborn, naive, charitable, myopic, idealistic, and/or concerned about other readers to effectively ignore our troll. Perhaps we will get better at it in the future.
Wow. Laura’s comments here have gotten so devoid of content that the lightest breeze will blow them away. Her words read like a satire on the discourses of a Zen Master.
Who says Laura is here?
ROFL.
Smoky Mountain, you’re absolutely right.
Who says I think that?
Posted by: Laura | Aug 24, 2007 1:30:16 PM
Who says you actually think?
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Jimmy’s site has just one troll who simply switches handles for each thread that interests him/her?
Having read this site for a year or so, when trolls like Laura pop up, they sound about the same.
It would be interesting if Jimmy could start tracking suspected troll activity to see if they originate from the same source.
“satire on the discourses of a Zen Master”
Very apt. I might call it “parody” rather than satire, but the effect is hilarious either way. Unless you actually know such people, then “tedious” might be a better descriptor.
For each thread? Laura had already burned through a dozen or more handles in this thread alone before Jimmy asked him/her to stick to one handle per thread. Laura = Art = Bart = Q = Elmar = Carla = Ted and that’s just in this post and a few other recent ones.
Yes. One busy, busy troll. Almost industrious, you might say. Like I said, I’m very curious why.
Perhaps it’s nothing more than a way to get people to pour their time & energy into a black hole.
Motivation is anyone’s guess. Like people who write malicious code.
Considering the nature of Laura’s comments as well as her many aliases on this thread alone, it seems that Laura might have been responsible for all the other Gnostic characters that have appeared on this blog.
However, I’ve got to admit, considering the fact that Jimmy Akin’s blog is one that allows anybody to post, I’m rather surprised that there’s not so many lewd comments on it as on other blogs.
I mean, sure, there are a few I’ve found on JA.O, but they’re only a handful.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit is protecting the blog in some way?
Dunno…
I’m not sure if it’s even necessary to say this, but here goes. I posted (and this is the entire post):
If we take Laura at her word that she thinks each person can define his or her own reality, then who’s to say she doesn’t just arbitrarily enjoy posting those views here?
And yes, Laura, I realize you didn’t actually say that. But all the other commenters on this site have formed a collective belief that that’s what you think. So let us tell our story that way, okay?
Laura (if she is here, and if you choose to name her that) responds (if you perceive her to be):
If we take Laura at her word that she thinks each person can define his or her own reality
Who says I think that?
This may be the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen anyone do on this blog, or possibly on any blog. And that’s saying a lot. Of course, “stupid” is just a name that I’m using, that can mean whatever I want it to mean. You are all also free to draw your own conclusions from this. Laura evidently is unlikely to read this far anyway.
Like I said, I’m very curious why.
Why is Laura here?
Who says Laura is here?
Same answer.
If we take Laura at her word that she thinks each person can define his or her own reality
Who says I think that?
Who says I’m Laura?
Why is Laura here?
Who says Laura is here?
Same answer.
Who says I’m Laura?
Who am I?
What am I?
Why am I?
Oh brother!
Stupid is as Stupid Does!
Esau, I think the Gnostic Troll Feeding Hours ended. At least, that’s what the sign says. ;^)
I might call it “parody” rather than satire,
Oh, that’s the word I was looking for! I knew “satire” just didn’t feel right, but I couldn’t recall the word I had in mind.
Who is John Galt?
Laura, you can bold the word “I” all you want. The third sentence of my post can’t be any more clear: everyone here, except you, says you think that.
And in response to your “who says I’m Laura”: I explicitly addressed my comment only to people who already think you are, in fact, Laura.
Which leaves me to conclude that you’re not even willing to have an honest conversation on your own absurd terms. Which leaves me to conclude that Jimmy should permanently ban you from this site.
Who says I’m Laura?
The person typing the information into the name entry field. Er…that would be you.
People, people, people.
Francis, you successfully proved that even if you stop feeding the troll, the troll will seize on anything available to eat.
So did I; I not only expressly declined to ask Laura why she was here, I expressly disclaimed any interest in whatever Laura might take the occasion of the question to say. Didn’t stop her from saying something anyway that only confirmed my prediction about the quality of answer s/he would give.
Troll must be pretty hungry to be willing to stoop to take that bait. It’s kind of pathetic.
Heh. I’m strangely reminded of the following exchange from The Lord of the Rings:
Be that as it may, our troll has provided an excess of evidence that it has, I won’t say no other reason for being here, but at any rate no intention of being here without befouling the waters with every post and generally trying to make it as unpleasant as possible for everyone else. The whole modus operandi and raison d’etre of his/her posts is one big Rule 1 affront, and always has been, and that has always been the point.
We gave him/her what he/she wanted, and s/he took it, and then we stopped, and s/he is still willing to take what s/he can get.
FWIW, I agree that it’s long since time for Laura to go. I expect Jimmy will agree too.
Any last words, Laura? A final neener-neener before heading off to fresh waters to befoul?
On an unrelated topic, I just noticed that Tim J. is still a co-blogger. Mea culpa. Tim, I still really enjoy your comments.
What happened to SDG and the other lady being co-bloggers? Did you guys retire?
I explicitly addressed my comment only to people who already think you are, in fact, Laura.
You said “we”.
The person typing the information into the name entry field.
You’re just as welcome to call me Matthew Siekierski. It would be just as accurate.
The whole modus operandi and raison d’etre of his/her posts is one big Rule 1 affront
The Catechism says, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.” To love your neighbor as yourself is to give yourself to others. Myself is yourself. Call me Matthew or SDG or Tim or Jimmy or any name you like. I love you all as my self.
I fully accept the “more ready” burden of proof, and submit the evidence tendered as more than sufficient to discharge this burden.
I cannot love a lie. I cannot love a thing that is not.
Who says that Matthew or SDG or Tim or Jimmy or any name you like is here?
I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
The Catechism says, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”
One can, of course, take that far, far beyond what the Catechism means. Chris Sullivan, for example, will always give what he considers a favorable interpretation to statements, i.e., one that agrees with him. Thus Ordinatio Sacerdotalis allows for women’s ordination in the future, the Koran teaches the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, etc. He does the same to commenters he’s talking to. It is incredibly frustrating to constantly have your own comments twisted into meaning the opposite of what you really meant. To some that may seem like charity (as your interlocutor is understanding your statement as what he sees as truth, rather than what he sees as error), but really it is insulting, pernicious, and perhaps even solipsistic.
Laura, the Catechism can mean whatever we want it to mean. It’s our story, after all.
“Laura”, at least I’m honest about who I am.
I explicitly addressed my comment only to people who already think you are, in fact, Laura.
You said “we”.
Of course. “We” means “I and at least one other.”
I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
Mother Theresa reported only silence.
“We” means “I and at least one other.”
The statement said “only people who already think you are, in fact, Laura.” Who believes *I* am “in fact” Laura? By your definition, “we” don’t believe it unless *I* do, and it’s already been posted as “fact” that “my name is Jordan, not Llewellyn.”
Exercise for the reader: In which word of the sentence above is the falsehood contained? If you have any trouble answering, raise your hand.
Exercise for the reader: In which word of the sentence above is the falsehood contained?
Falsehood is not contained in any word. It’s in your interpretation.
Didn’t the Gnostic Troll Feeding Times end?
Maybe I misread the sign.
LAURA:
THIS IS YOUR RULE 1 WARNING. KNOCK IT OFF OR YOU WILL BE DISINVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BLOG.